In the short term? Yes. My larger point is that many of the issues of Iraq existed long before Obama, and nothing he could have done would have plausibly fixed those issues. He didn't cause the collapse of Iraq, but accelerated it.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans
- Thread starter Sokrates
- Start date
In the short term? Yes. My larger point is that many of the issues of Iraq existed long before Obama, and nothing he could have done would have plausibly fixed those issues. He didn't cause the collapse of Iraq, but accelerated it.
Greenwald is good. I'm glad there's people in the media who will take a principled anti-war stance, because we know the Democrats and the "liberal" MSNBC won't.
American troops in Iraq would have prevented the fall of Mosul and the existence of ISIS as a state in Iraq. I would venture to say the garrisoning of Iraq by American troops would have prevented the collapse of Iraq into what we had today. In no way was the collapse of Iraq the sole path it could have down. By removing American troops in Iraq, Obama effectively removed all American influence in the country, and allowed the continued destabilization of the country.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/07/the-mess-obama-left-behind-in-iraq-surge-debate/
Was the country gonna destabilize even with American troops present? Probably. However, I argue that a American presence and influence probably would have hindered and prevented the worse timeline from occurring, the rise of ISIS as a state, and the collapse of Iraqi forces in 2014.
It takes some real galaxy brain to claim that what Iraq needed was more U.S soldiers WHEN THEY CAUSED THE GODDAMN COLLAPSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Libya turned into a shitshow, Afghanistan is being lost to the Taliban, Assad has taken back most of Syria etc.
You've repeatedly now demonstrated that you're utterly incapable of nationbuilding in the MENA, The region does not need or want you there. It will absolutely get worse in the short term, but what other options are there?
You shoved a knife into someone and are now arguing that you shouldn't remove it because it'll cause bleeding. Unless you want to stay there holding it in place for the next 50 years, you have to let go of it. The sooner the better, so the bloody and violent healing process can begin.
No, he isn't.
And using Bill Maher as some sort of litmus test for Dems is lol levels of terrible.
Lol this. Also Im glad people refute this article by supporting US military presence abroad
More leftist rubbish. How dare you look at each situation in isolation instead of blindly applying ideology to every situation. As we all know, prematurely pulling out of Iraq and Libya, and refusing to intervene in Syria until the last minute worked out really well.
Yeah this entire thread is proof that US liberals can't live without the US occupying some poor foreign country.
Green
This is a hilarious analogy considering pulling an embedded object out of a wound without proper care and preparation can cause a person to bleed out and die.
https://www.primalsurvivor.net/treat-knife-wound/
"Under normal circumstances, you should never remove the knife."
This is a hilarious analogy considering pulling an embedded object out of a wound without proper care and preparation can cause a person to bleed out and die.
https://www.primalsurvivor.net/treat-knife-wound/
"Under normal circumstances, you should never remove the knife."
He pulled out of Iraq and incredibly reduced US forces in Afghanistan both to epically disastrous effect. What are you trying to say?
Bu bu bu liberals are the real warhawks. Glenn will push "woke" far leftists to continue supporting the likes of Trump while completely ignoring shit like this.
This is a silly conclusion. Some Democrats are opposed to what Trump wants to do because Trump wants to do it. Add to that the actual rationale that drives the decision and it makes it clear this is not ideologically motivated. I don't think of myself as a neoconservative but even I see the obvious shitstorm that will happen if we do things as Trump wants to do them (which is why the plans have been revised six times since announcement). When I consider further that Trump wants to do it, it's obvious what the right path is.
I don't have any ideological similarities with David Frum at all; we agree with each other on this for reasons independently derived. I'm not "more militaristic."
What exactly is the expunging event for Iraq war at this point? Does the Party need to reform or how should remaining prominent members of Congress repent in some fashion?
This would seem to support clear negative polarization.
I don't have any ideological similarities with David Frum at all; we agree with each other on this for reasons independently derived. I'm not "more militaristic."
What exactly is the expunging event for Iraq war at this point? Does the Party need to reform or how should remaining prominent members of Congress repent in some fashion?
This would seem to support clear negative polarization.
Look up how many civilians including women and children the US killed under his command, and thats outside of shit like supplying weapons to absolute lunatics, supporting the Saudi war in yemen, the Bahrain goverment repression, etc.
When you are dunking on Maher to show someone is good.
You are scrapping the bottom of the shit barrel.
And the US military under him committed war crimes, double taps, signature strikes, war activity without congressional approval, warrantless wiretapping of citizens, etc.
Just because he was less bad than worse in a generation Bush doesn't mean it's a good record.
Comfy liberals don't give a fuck about innocent brown people getting slaughtered by their government as long as it's in another country.
Nail head right here. Also, let's not forget how many liberals rehabilitated Dubya Bush a few months ago or batted hard for McCain, two purveyors of war and misery.
Exactly my feelings. I see an article by Greenwald I know it will be trash and will bash America.
So? You some kind of nationalist? Not like his criticism doesn't come with productive advice.
And how are those things congruent with liberalism just because Obama did them?
Comfy leftists don't give a fuck about bronw people and support brutal dictators just as long as they themselves are not implicated. We'll let Rwandas, Burmas, Ukraines, and Syrians of the world to happen. As long as it's brown and black people suffering its whatever. It's out of sight out of mind for some of you.
It doesn't. The man is a hypotcritical fool and a Russia apologist. He can take his opinions elsewhere.
Trump moving the GOP toward isolationist policy is only changing the lens that we view the Dems foreign policy through, not their actual stances. Bush took a hyper interventionist stance, which provoked criticism highlighting how we need to do this less, the conversation proliferating into more anti-intervention sentiments, and now the opposite is happening with Trump. There's definitely room for Dems to now support more intervention under the right candidate (Gabbard), but I don't think it's a huge problem for Dems who remember the Bush Administration.
Remember how all those new networks that criticized Trump all them time were all "Today Trump became presiden" when he bombed Syria?
Becoming? Democrats supported Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and so on and so on. It is not something that will be stopped until the United States of America is stopped by outside force or a needle in the haystack type of isolationist president like Wilson. Americans just get itchy when they can't blame a foreigner, foreign country for their problems and consequently harm the foreign entity economically or by sword.
Yeah, I remember it, because I supported that decision. You would have preferred Assad continue gassing people without repercussion? It was absolutely the right decision as Assad has not gassed people since.
So you agreed with these networks at the time that the one thing that made Trump finally fit to be called President of the US was bombing a middle eastern country?
Also , there has been EIGHT chemical weapons attacks since those bombings
No, but I think it was the right decision.
I just learnt of that. Considering Assad has been doing this without repercussion, what makes you think not intervening will stop these gas attacks?
I think the only thing Bush really triggered is a specific opposition to the way the Iraq war prosecuted. Most Democrats and their voters supported the war originally, and I have not seen any evidence that there was a serious introspection and reevaluation of American foreign policy tools, either among Democratic leaders of their voters. Just look at Obama, he might have been more restrained and way more competent than Bush, but it's still mostly the same playbook.
Yes, there is always a small contingent of the Democratic party which hold a principled anti-War stance, but it's usually dismissed as "lol loonie hippies", at least until there is political backwind to oppose a specific war.
We posting Glenn Greenwald?
Glenn Greenwald won a pulitzer you know.
Francis Crick won a Nobel prize after stealing DNA research and photos from a woman he disparaged after her death and went on to support eugenics and suggested rich people should do the lion's share of procreation.
Greenwald is an outrageous hypocrite whose behaviors are either borderline pathological or more likely compromised by normal hack trash or worse . He's also a fraud of sorts who postures as a defender of liberalism but actually promotes the same sort of "both sides Obama was worse and who cares about a couple of russia tweets" trash that 45 post burner accounts here do.
Glenn Greenwald won a pulitzer you know.
Francis Crick won a Nobel prize after stealing DNA research and photos from a woman he disparaged after her death and went on to support eugenics and suggested rich people should do the lion's share of procreation.
Greenwald is an outrageous hypocrite whose behaviors are either borderline pathological or more likely compromised by normal hack trash or worse . He's also a fraud of sorts who postures as a defender of liberalism but actually promotes the same sort of "both sides Obama was worse and who cares about a couple of russia tweets" trash that 45 post burner accounts here do.
I dont think they are going to stop either way.
One of the eight attacks one was by turkish alligned forces against kurds and another was by rebels against goverment controlled areas.
The only way people will obey the rules is if they're actually enforced, as far as I'm concerned.
Turkey is not going to get kicked out of NATO
The US isnt going to stop supporting the Bahrain goverment just because they gassed their people because they were protesting
You should really read the article, I think it's making a valid and important point.
Hypocrites can do it from time to time.
You do not need a "plan" when you are violating international law on how to stop violating it. You must simply cease that violation immediately and withdraw as fast as possible.
No, but pretending the US is the savior of anti-IS forces in the region and must therefore rip up the foundational principles of international law in order to protect those poor innocent people who cannot protect themselves is both paternalistic and illegal.
I know. We really shouldn't allow journalism that we disagree with on this website.
Ive always felt the American people were too spineless in regards to War. Absolutely if we stay we should be staying in Iraq 50 years down the line.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Not a /s, the reluctance of the American people in war is completely foolish. If we are there, it should be for the long run, no withdrawal, no blanching at piles of American bodies coming home, no old men wanting their volunteering sons home to spare them the war bullcrap.
Frankly, I despise Americans being so upset at the deaths of their countrymen over others. Get over it, lock yourself in. No accountability whatsoever. If we intervene, go all the way, land Marines in Tripoli again. Or fund the French. None of this shit where ISIS arrives.
As for the Iraq invasion, whatever, the decision was done, no point in arguing about it anymore, it happened, whatever, we're stuck there for 50 years. Instead Obama takes the easy way out, and 3 years later we got beheadings in Mosul, a ISIS army nearing the capital and U.S money pouring right back in anyway.
Oh we should probably give up Afghanistan cause between Pakistan and Iran, I'm not really too sure how we can sustain a presence there but Iraq we still have Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and a port city to ferry stuff in.
We really shouldn't allow propaganda that's at the same level as InfoWars on this website.
I did. I agree with Greenwald on lots of specific subjects but he's cried wolf on trash so many times that I'll no longer reward it or the body of his work with credulity. At least I could listen to Christopher Hitchens (RIP) on geopolitics and humanism and religion and history but I turn him off when he starts going off on Iraq and 9/11.
And if I can be more blunt than that, I find Greenwald literally suspicious. But I can read the bones of the article, find facts and still reject his framing and angle.
I think Greenwald is wrong sometimes, but I don't think he's a propagandist
Journalism based on legitimate sources is propaganda because we don't agree with how it's framed, got it.
He's way too liberal with the use of "pro-war" as a term however. Pro-intervention is more accurate, but that doesn't get him as many clicks.
I just have to say (and almost hesitate to, because it's so ridiculous it hardly merits a response).
The idea that a publication, who might publish pieces you disagree with, but is nonetheless a proper, journalistic outfit with sourcing and fact-checking, who hires highly-rated and credible journos like Mehdi Hasan (formerly of the BBC, Channel 4, and New Statesman) is somehow comparable to a raving conspiracy website that publishes nonsense about Obama poisoning the drinking water and turning frogs gay is one of the worst and most ridiculous things I've read on this website.
The idea that a publication, who might publish pieces you disagree with, but is nonetheless a proper, journalistic outfit with sourcing and fact-checking, who hires highly-rated and credible journos like Mehdi Hasan (formerly of the BBC, Channel 4, and New Statesman) is somehow comparable to a raving conspiracy website that publishes nonsense about Obama poisoning the drinking water and turning frogs gay is one of the worst and most ridiculous things I've read on this website.
OP
OP
Have any proof that I'm any of these things besides your dumb ass? lol
Thread would be nicer if people just argued their points based on evidence instead of assuming everyone who disagrees is racist, violent, war-mongering, uncaring or whatever. Assuming a person supports every single thing or statement a politician has done or said is also lazy: get this, even among neocons and pure isolationists, there can be disagreements.
When posters are using complete ultracrepidarian hacks like Hitchens to defend their character assassination as opposed to addressing the article you know you've scraped the bottom of the barrel.
So why won't you engage with the content of that article on any level?
Do you think he the polls he's quoting are wrong or are you unconcerned that Democratic voters seem to have increased their support for wars in opposition to Trump?