Print

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

[sluissa]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Rofl Greece what are you doing there

I'm guessing because we have a close relationship with both countries (though things are a little strained with Turkey atm) while the two hate each other.

Also, lol this: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/24/14725950/russian-flag-cpac I don't know whether it was an innocent thing because red, blue, and white, or some kind of prank or totally intentional, but it does seems strange regardless.

I'm guessing intentional on some level, although maybe innocent mistake on the part of the people actually waving them.

Some prankster probably went along the line outside as people were filing in and started handing out flags. Although given the ineptness of Trump's supporters I fully expect someone might have just ordered "Trump Red White Blue Flag" from ebay or something and got that.

[Loud Whispers]

Isn't it a bit odd to open your door to the people whose country you've just wrecked. Don't exactly think they're gonna like you

We certainly absorbed a lot of Vietnamese, although most of them were from the South.

I agree with the sentiment of not treating defeated allies better, hell I think it's a travesty that countries like the USA and UK don't help more local guides who literally go out on a life and limb to help us. I stand by my earlier points tho

[Rolepgeek]

Oh, I know we didn't do go there for that reason, and that it was post-hoc justification. But if we can cry foul with hindsight in regards to there being no WMDs, we can also do the opposite. On net, there was probably a loss, because it was handled poorly anyway. But I dunno 'bout you guys, imo genocide is one of those things I would seem unacceptable from a country. Like, it's one of the things where invasion seems inherently justifiable. Difficult, and not preferable to other means of ending atrocities, but certainly justifiable.

[misko27]

Regarding the WSJ, there's been a very interesting internal war going on over there. The reporters have accused the WSJ chief editor of being soft on Trump and harsh on Clinton (aided by the fact the editor put out an opinion article praising Trump after the election), while the editor has responded by stating the WSJ is focusing on facts and non-Trump news.

No you didn't, your balance was completely out of whack. It's a moot point opening your door to a couple thousand Libyans or Iraqis after blowing up their country, that's gonna do the millions left behind fuck all, and would've been better solved by either not blowing up their countries to begin with, or staying and getting the job done with regime change. All I can say is thank God that Trump has abandoned the regime change policy because it clearly wasn't working and the Neocon and Neolibs had barely done fucking up Libya and Iraq before setting their eyes on Syria and Iran. What did you guys genuinely expect would happen by killing every opponent to jihadist groups

Well the US doesn't typically have a policy of inviting people here. They usually come on their own. In fact they've pretty much always come on their own. In fact it's usually the US slowing immigration down, restricting things, setting quotas, anglicizing people's name as they come in, etc. Of course that's immigration by sea, where the US has a lot more control. Immigration through Mexico is a more recent phenomenon, and even the Bipartisan immigration bill heavily focused the border security aspect. I don't think there is any support for less border security, it's just that a wall is ineffective, expensive, and overall stupid. In short, bad policy. But we're not really in the business of inviting people, no.

Isn't it a bit odd to open your door to the people whose country you've just wrecked. Don't exactly think they're gonna like you

Maybe we just need extreme vetting? As opposed to the vetting we had before, of course. You know I still own a copy of the letter signed by J. Edgar Hoover ordering my grandfather expelled from the country due to his membership in the communist party of his home country (it didn't stick, incidentally, but that was due to... I'll just say my grandfather was a defector and other elements of the IC wanted him to stay).

But I dunno 'bout you guys, imo genocide is one of those things I would seem unacceptable from a country. Like, it's one of the things where invasion seems inherently justifiable. Difficult, and not preferable to other means of ending atrocities, but certainly justifiable.

Well legally (as opposed to morally) there is not only a justification, but a responsibility. All signatories to the UN convention on Genocide in 1948 agree to "punish and prevent" genocide, and to take such action as must be necessary.

Incidentally, reading the Wikipedia article had an amusing tidbit:

Prior to its ratification of the convention, the United States Senate was treated to a speech by Senator William Proxmire in favor of this treaty every day that the Senate was in session between 1967 and 1986.

[martinuzz]

Did you know that if you edit everything the Trump administration says in the media to have an audience laughter soundtrack in the background, it all makes 100% more sense?

[Reelya]

So apparently the wall street journal now agrees with Trump in regards to his opinions on Sweden's immigration policy.

I used an archived page in order for people to get past the WSJ's paywall. Also, apparently a huffpost contributor posted a very similar article, which got deleted from the site, but thankfuly it got archived before that as well.

That's an opinion piece by the far-right Sweden Democrats though, not an opinion of the WSJ. More interesting to see them in the HuffPo though.

The Huff Pro guy also wrote this article however:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rene-zografos/ten-things-foreigners-lov_b_9109148.html
It's pretty nauseating and back slapping bullshit.

Pride
In many countries you find people that doesn’t care about their own culture, history or traditions. In America you want find them. It doesn’t matter how badly America is ruled. The American people will never give up on their country; they want changes for a better America and work hard to make these changes instead of sitting passive and doing nothing. It’s not difficult to see peoples admirations for their country when I visit the US. They have a built-in-pride in their country, which is beautiful to witness.

Oh FFS, I really want to punch this guy in the face and this isn't even the worst item. Can't take this writer seriously, America invented Patriotism, American invented Tradition, America invented Freedom, Ameria invented Inventing.

[martinuzz]

But what if preventing the genocide of x people will cost the life of x times ten civilians?

[Reelya]

But what if preventing the genocide of x people will cost the life of x times ten civilians?

... but then the dictator would have gotten away with it. And he'd be all smug and stuff. It's better to kill the extra people yourself to show him who's boss.

[TempAcc]

Amurica confirmed for Eldar

[Loud Whispers]

Well the US doesn't typically have a policy of inviting people here.

Typically, but Obama and Clinton were catching Angela's drift

They usually come on their own. In fact they've pretty much always come on their own. In fact it's usually the US slowing immigration down, restricting things, setting quotas, anglicizing people's name as they come in, etc. Of course that's immigration by sea, where the US has a lot more control. Immigration through Mexico is a more recent phenomenon, and even the Bipartisan immigration bill heavily focused the border security aspect. I don't think there is any support for less border security, it's just that a wall is ineffective, expensive, and overall stupid. In short, bad policy. But we're not really in the business of inviting people, no.

Didn't say anything in the way of inviting, leaving doors unlocked and open is what I'm getting at, it's the European way and it fucked up Europe hilariously. Regarding the wall, you can get some walls built to stand against military attacks with smart integrated sensors. The wall will be worth it if it fucks up CIA drug smuggling lines lmao
Assuming those exist of course. Then the weight shifts to airports and coastguard

Maybe we just need extreme vetting? As opposed to the vetting we had before, of course. You know I still own a copy of the letter signed by J. Edgar Hoover ordering my grandfather expelled from the country due to his membership in the communist party of his home country (it didn't stick, incidentally, but that was due to... I'll just say my grandfather was a defector and other elements of the IC wanted him to stay).

That seems reasonable, I don't have much to add except that that sounds expensive and I'm not sure what effective qualifiers you could set up

But what if preventing the genocide of x people will cost the life of x times ten civilians?

... but then the dictator would have gotten away with it. And he'd be all smug and stuff. It's better to kill the extra people yourself to show him who's boss.

No, the relevant question is if you declare war on the dictator, will you win.
Kill the extra people, destroy the country, wipe out the dictator and his family, but you better be sure you have overwhelming force and the resources to rebuild all that broke. Otherwise it turns to complete and total shit and you'll have lost. One dictator will fall and be replaced by worse warlords

[Antioch]

Spoilered because I just realized that this is probably better for armchair general, but I might as well post it anyway.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Honestly I think the first lesson in war that most governments, especially the US, need to learn these days is stop changing the damn wargoal mid-war. This is why the US lost Korea. This is why the US lost Vietnam. We reached a point that we said "this will be where we end it", thought we could push further whether by pride and ego or by assumptions, pushed further. Tried to push further still, then shit went to hell because we pushed too far and we ended up losing ground on what was the original peace point.

Second lesson of war: don't leave power vacuums. If pulling out creates a power vacuum, don't; stay until you've actually built something sufficient enough that a power vacuum won't be left in your wake. See: Iraq. Or rather, the entire history of West Asia. For instance, when the Ilkhanate collapsed, it left a power vacuum that Timur then filled. Then Timur died, left a power vacuum that the Qara Qoyunlu started filling, before being killed and letting the Aq Qoyunlu fill the vacuum that they left, before the Safavids killed the Aq Qoyunlu and formed the state of Persia that persisted for several centuries until losing Afghanistan to the Hotaki and eventually the entire thing (including territories lost to the Hotaki) to Nadar Shah. Then Nadar Shah died and the whole thing split up again, leaving a power vacuum for the Qajar dynasty to take. They were overthrown by the Pahlavi dynasty, whose rule was ended in the Iranian revolution.

Point of all that is, when you leave a power vacuum in West Asia, someone comes in and conquers it. Usually people you don't want. I oppose any direct US action in Iraq on the basis that I do not trust the US to stay there long enough to properly establish a power that will resist conquest when they leave. This is why I oppose trying to destroy Iran; whatever follows in their wake will be worse, because the US cannot remain committed to military-based state building projects for any more than 8 years.

Korea was a completely different war from Vietnam and I wouldn't say the US lost the Korean war. The most primary goal was to defeat the North Korean invasion of the south, a goal that was definitely achieved. The extended goal of removing the North Korean regime however, was not.

Though your point about the power vacuum is very true. It is one of the reasons why Post-war Germany did so well and Iraq did so poor. In Germany the Allies assumed direct command at the top and most civil servants were kept into position, even when affiliated with the Nazi party. Only the top Nazi's and war criminals were removed.

In Iraq however everyone affiliated with the Baat party in any way was removed from power. Not only did this create a power vacuum, these people also formed the seed of the insurgent groups. Furthermore the US made itself impotent by trying to installing a democratic government way to early. This government was impotent and corrupt, severely hampering all efforts at rebuilding the country.

[misko27]

Didn't say anything in the way of inviting, leaving doors unlocked and open is what I'm getting at, it's the European way and it fucked up Europe hilariously. Regarding the wall, you can get some walls built to stand against military attacks with smart integrated sensors.

But you have to remember what we're talking about. It's a really big fucking wall. It's 2000 miles of wall to build, maintain, and defend, forever. Every extra foot taller or sensor necessary to make sure it actually does what it is supposed to do is a lot more cost. And as of right now no one has any idea where the money to build it should come from, and legally it has to come from somewhere due to sequestration imposing rules on Congress's spending.

So that's where the skepticism comes from. I mean sure, I could imagine a great-big wall that just keeps everyone out, but is it cost-effective? The wall already has got the cost part down, but to be effective it needs even more cost, which means it needs to be even more worthwhile for what we're paying for it. 

That seems reasonable, I don't have much to add except that that sounds expensive and I'm not sure what effective qualifiers you could set up

Well current law bars anarchists, communists, totalitarians, and advocates of assassination, government overthrow by force, destruction of property, and sabotage, in addition to a general rule mandating that you must be 'attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.' I'm not sure how it's applied (I've not had to go through immigration myself), but the precedent is certainly there.

[Puzzlemaker]

So Trump is banning certain news agencies from his press conferences now.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/index.html

[Aklyon]

it sounds like he just wants to invite people who will listen to him, not people to actually report on things.

[martinuzz]

Banning overthrowing a government by force sounds like a bad idea. Most of our Western ideals and state forms were acquired through overthrowing a government by force.

EDIT: especially considering the 2nd amendment, I cannot imagine that overthrowing a government by force is actually illegal in the US.