Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A massive rebellion declares a separate sovereignty, making it an edge case. Think of it in the situation of the world as if the Confederacy had survived, or the actual reality of the American revolution succeeding against Britain instead of failing.

[Antioch]

Of course though, the Presidency changed hands during the Vietnam War, which kind of demolishes that precedent.

Considering that Vietnam was probably the most bungled foreign policy situation in American history, it reinforces the idea.

Saying it was bungled implies that there was a correct course of action to begin with.

[smjjames]

Of course though, the Presidency changed hands during the Vietnam War, which kind of demolishes that precedent.

Considering that Vietnam was probably the most bungled foreign policy situation in American history, it reinforces the idea.

Saying it was bungled implies that there was a correct course of action to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

At the time, the 'correct course of action' was to stop the commies. Kennedy, to his credit, seems to have tried to at least keep from getting hugely involved, but then CIA stuff happened, stuff with South Vietnam, coups, etc, then Kennedy assasination, then LBJ.

It pretty much goes into the basket of "shit we did while blinded by the Cold War and being anti-communist and wanting to stop the commies at all costs."

[Starver]

Uh, what does 9/11 have to do with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? That was orchestrated by a member of the Saudi royal family who would later hide in Pakistan and practically within sight of a major military base. Bush and Cheney would have happily attacked the middle east within a few years regardless; clearly 9/11 was a useful propaganda victory for him (since people still believe it was somehow related to his wars....), but it had no practical effect on which war he would declare.

Afghanistan was done on the excuse that it was there, with the tacit support of the Taliban, that OBL and AQ were based. Which was true in sufficient detail. There really wasn't a strategic reason to attack(/'free') Afghanistan without the 911-perpetrators, at least not since the point when the West had helped kick out Russia (and kick-start the 'insurgency' industry).

Iraq was more tenuous, but without having already interfered in Afganistan, I'm not sure the "oh, by the way, we have an excuse to open a new front" thing would have happened so easily.  Not the same.  Though still a good reason might have been found to finish "Dad's work", if Bush was still around by the time the necessary pieces fell in place.

All of that being arguable.

[Lord Shonus]

Of course though, the Presidency changed hands during the Vietnam War, which kind of demolishes that precedent.

Considering that Vietnam was probably the most bungled foreign policy situation in American history, it reinforces the idea.

Saying it was bungled implies that there was a correct course of action to begin with.

The first bungle was getting in. The second bungle was deciding that the measures needed to win were geopolitically contraindicated but continuing to fight anyway.

[sluissa]

Of course though, the Presidency changed hands during the Vietnam War, which kind of demolishes that precedent.

Considering that Vietnam was probably the most bungled foreign policy situation in American history, it reinforces the idea.

Saying it was bungled implies that there was a correct course of action to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

At the time, the 'correct course of action' was to stop the commies. Kennedy, to his credit, seems to have tried to at least keep from getting hugely involved, but then CIA stuff happened, stuff with South Vietnam, coups, etc, then Kennedy assasination, then LBJ.

It pretty much goes into the basket of "shit we did while blinded by the Cold War and being anti-communist and wanting to stop the commies at all costs."

In the famous quote, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Vietnam could fit easily into "the other things."

[Egan_BW]

I guess if you want to get into hard things for their own sake wars are pretty okay for that purpose.

[misko27]

The problem of Vietnam (a very well debated topic, mind) is one that tends to attract a lot of bad thinking. Some people say stuff like "The war wasn't winnable." Nonsense. Any war is winnable, and the United States is the best example of a country that could win any war. The question is whether you are willing to pay the price - however high, and for however long - to win. Then what Shonus said applies: we decided we couldn't pay the price necessary to win (certainly there was no political will for, say a massive escalation and invasion of North Vietnam, for example), but we kept fighting. We kept fighting for a lot of reasons, surely; one of which that there was no easy way to de-escalate the war or our involvement in it, another was the need to save face in some manner, and there are certainly others.

Uh, what does 9/11 have to do with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? That was orchestrated by a member of the Saudi royal family who would later hide in Pakistan and practically within sight of a major military base. Bush and Cheney would have happily attacked the middle east within a few years regardless; clearly 9/11 was a useful propaganda victory for him (since people still believe it was somehow related to his wars....), but it had no practical effect on which war he would declare.

Afghanistan was done on the excuse that it was there, with the tacit support of the Taliban, that OBL and AQ were based. Which was true in sufficient detail. There really wasn't a strategic reason to attack(/'free') Afghanistan without the 911-perpetrators, at least not since the point when the West had helped kick out Russia (and kick-start the 'insurgency' industry).

All of that being arguable.

The US invaded Afghanistan less than a month after 9/11, while the skies above New York was still thick with smoke and ash. Unless somewhat presents a significant amount of evidence as context for the view that the US invasion was in any way likely barring 9/11 or a 9/11-like attack, or that such an attack would not at a minimum look very radically different from the one we saw, it's not arguable, it's ridiculous.

I don't know why the desire to reify Iraq and Afghanistan as if they were the same war. The wars are so radically different that it's almost baffling. Article 5, the UN, Freedom fries, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud on September 9th, 2001; any of these things ring bells?

And on a topic that is at least tangentially related to the present, opposition to the Senate Healthcare bill appears to be hardening over the recess.

[redwallzyl]

cant even pass their own bill, that's just sad.

[smjjames]

I remember the Freedom Fries stuff, yeah, it was the result of France not wanting to join in on Iraq, which resulted in a cultural spat that didn't really last longer than a year, though lingered for a bit.

I don't remember about Ahmad Shah Massoud though.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 really, and almost everything to do with either oil and/or Bush wanting to scratch an itch that he had about wanting to finish what his father didn't do.

cant even pass their own bill, that's just sad.

McConnell has also been saying that we'll have to just go and fix/repair Obamacare. Which they could have done from the start.

If luck will have it, they'll still be trying to work on it while having to deal with the debt ceiling/default cliff at the same time.

[MrRoboto75]

cant even pass their own bill, that's just sad.

Sad!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I mean, a tabled bill isn't officially dead until the year's Congress ends. But every passing day without a vote increases its deadness.

[Playergamer]

goddamnit. i voted for a reichstag fire.

where the fuck is my reichstag fire.

[smjjames]

Is the bill officially dead?

Dead in the water? By all appearances, yes. Dead? Not until McConnell says that he has given up on it or they give it a vote and let it fail on it's own.

The Republicans are definetly going to catch a lot of flack for not doing what they promised to do, which was kind of an impossible promise in the first place.

I mean, a tabled bill isn't officially dead until the year's Congress ends. But every passing day without a vote increases its deadness.

Technically, yeah, but they'd have to ignore or give up on it, and they aren't willing to do that yet. Plus McConnell really wants to do something to at least get things stabilized and doesn't want to just do nothing.

goddamnit. i voted for a reichstag fire.

where the fuck is my reichstag fire.

Republican impotence is your reichstag fire. Or maybe the Democrats winning the House in 2018.

[PTTG??]

cant even pass their own bill, that's just sad.

Sad!

I dunno, I'm for once happy that they're totally ineffectual. With, of course, the caveat that they're so ineffectual that they may accidentally pass it in spite of themselves, like the three stooges wrestling over who gets to press the button to launch the nukes. Yeah, they might be perfectly balanced buffoonery failing to press the button, but they also might give up and then accidentally sit on it.

Hopefully they'll fight over it long enough that grown-ups can take control of the congress and get single-payer signed in. Because that's the funny thing, isn't it? They convinced everyone that Obamacare needed to be fixed. If they'd just shut up, there'd be no way to reach across the isle and ask to go all the way to real, first-world health care. But now, democrats can say "you're right, and here's how to fix it: single payer."