The 9-11 story is the one.kelly09 said:
https://spectator.org/
And we're still spending loads of money on these needless wars.bearister said:
No mention in the essay about Dubya allowing Cheney and the Neocons to use 9/11 as one of pretextual justifications to invade Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States. The Iraq War resulted in the needless slaughter and physical and psychological maiming of hundreds of thousands, eliminated Iraq as the only counter weight to Iran, and destabilized the Middle East for the foreseeable future. No mention that California courts have initiated criminal prosecutions against ANTIFA members (I know of such cases in Alameda and Sacramento counties). No discussion of tRump's Nationalism that is fueled by fear, hate and ignorance. In other words, another opinion piece based on Fox & Friends bullet points.
I like the Ben Stein essay better.kelly09 said:The 9-11 story is the one.kelly09 said:
https://spectator.org/
"When some Muslims wanted to build a triumphalist mosque at ground zero"kelly09 said:The 9-11 story is the one.kelly09 said:
https://spectator.org/
Thank you for posting this.kelly09 said:The 9-11 story is the one.kelly09 said:
https://spectator.org/
Pigskin Pete said:
I like the Ben Stein essay better.
I should tell you that I pray for Trump ....
Pigskin Pete said:
Other than constantly lie, attempt to subvert an independent investigation into his campaign and administration, prop up dictators while hurting alliances, and grift for his own profit, no he's done nothing seriously wrong.
[regardless of political party in WH or holding majorities in congress]Pigskin Pete said:And we're still spending loads of money on these needless wars.bearister said:
No mention in the essay about Dubya allowing Cheney and the Neocons to use 9/11 as one of pretextual justifications to invade Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States. The Iraq War resulted in the needless slaughter and physical and psychological maiming of hundreds of thousands, eliminated Iraq as the only counter weight to Iran, and destabilized the Middle East for the foreseeable future. No mention that California courts have initiated criminal prosecutions against ANTIFA members (I know of such cases in Alameda and Sacramento counties). No discussion of tRump's Nationalism that is fueled by fear, hate and ignorance. In other words, another opinion piece based on Fox & Friends bullet points.
GBear4Life said:
...I honestly don't know what should be the line in the sand as far as the US intervening on behalf of citizens of another country under the hand of a killing machine.
That would be the strategic, foreign relations-type strategy.bearister said:GBear4Life said:
...I honestly don't know what should be the line in the sand as far as the US intervening on behalf of citizens of another country under the hand of a killing machine.
How is this line in the sand: Don't overthrow a dictator that poses no risk to US national security; don't overthrow a dictator when his Iron Fist was the only thing keeping the incompatible ethnic groups and religious sects in the country from slaughtering each other; don't overthrow a dictator when the altruistic invading force has no workable plan for governing the newly liberated country; and don't overthrow a dictator when he was the driving force that was keeping a state sponsor of international terrorism from becoming the preeminent Power in the region
GBear4Life said:
..(Again, I agree with you here more than I disagree....)
Do you have any thoughts on the conflict between calls to help victims of other countries and their dictators and self interest in the context of global foreign relations and strategies?bearister said:GBear4Life said:
..(Again, I agree with you here more than I disagree....)
Foreign policy does not conform to your crude partisan prism. That's why you don't understand it.GBear4Life said:That would be the strategic, foreign relations-type strategy.bearister said:GBear4Life said:
...I honestly don't know what should be the line in the sand as far as the US intervening on behalf of citizens of another country under the hand of a killing machine.
How is this line in the sand: Don't overthrow a dictator that poses no risk to US national security; don't overthrow a dictator when his Iron Fist was the only thing keeping the incompatible ethnic groups and religious sects in the country from slaughtering each other; don't overthrow a dictator when the altruistic invading force has no workable plan for governing the newly liberated country; and don't overthrow a dictator when he was the driving force that was keeping a state sponsor of international terrorism from becoming the preeminent Power in the region
The Left in particular likes to play the moral high ground strategy. This is of course problematic because it is implicit endorsement of military action (up to and including invasion and temporary occupation). There are lots of dictators doing awful things (by western liberal standards).
The argument to stay away because a dictator's brutal killings of his own people was a strategic counterweight to an adversary like Iran is highly AMORAL.
(Again, I agree with you here more than I disagree, but I'm saying some folks can't have it both ways).
Are these all the same people? Who are they?GBear4Life said:
While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.
I'm talking specifically about those that have contradicting positions on foreign intervention as a moral imperative (to intervene or not intervene)sycasey said:Are these all the same people? Who are they?GBear4Life said:
While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.
Liberals and/or "The Left" are not a monolithic group. Different factions exist, some more anti-war than others. Honestly, if they were more monolithic they'd probably be better at winning elections.
I wasn't taking a position on any general or specific foreign policy perspective. I'm criticizing *only* those who will, for example, implore the U.S. to intervene under an asserted pretense of human rights violations in a specific case but then lament the U.S. for doing just that under the same pretense (moral duty) in another case (e.g. Iraq).BearsWiin said:
Foreign policy does not conform to your crude partisan prism. That's why you don't understand it.
GBear4Life said:I'm talking specifically about those that have contradicting positions on foreign intervention as a moral imperative (to intervene or not intervene)sycasey said:Are these all the same people? Who are they?GBear4Life said:
While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.
Liberals and/or "The Left" are not a monolithic group. Different factions exist, some more anti-war than others. Honestly, if they were more monolithic they'd probably be better at winning elections.
GBear4Life said:I wasn't taking a position on any general or specific foreign policy perspective. I'm criticizing *only* those who will, for example, implore the U.S. to intervene under an asserted pretense of human rights violations in a specific case but then lament the U.S. for doing just that under the same pretense (moral duty) in another case (e.g. Iraq).BearsWiin said:
Foreign policy does not conform to your crude partisan prism. That's why you don't understand it.
I'm not taking a position on IR here, merely on logical consistency, so the claim of partisanship is poppycock.BearsWiin said:GBear4Life said:I wasn't taking a position on any general or specific foreign policy perspective. I'm criticizing *only* those who will, for example, implore the U.S. to intervene under an asserted pretense of human rights violations in a specific case but then lament the U.S. for doing just that under the same pretense (moral duty) in another case (e.g. Iraq).BearsWiin said:
Foreign policy does not conform to your crude partisan prism. That's why you don't understand it.
" ... in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations."
"The Left in particular likes to play the moral high ground strategy"
Take off the partisan blinders and look at schools of IR thought instead. It'll be less tiresome for the rest of us
e.g. those who supported strikes on Syria but morally postured about Iraq.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:I'm talking specifically about those that have contradicting positions on foreign intervention as a moral imperative (to intervene or not intervene)sycasey said:Are these all the same people? Who are they?GBear4Life said:
While not an endorsement of an war in particular, it's odd to me that in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations. Iraq had one of the worst.
Liberals and/or "The Left" are not a monolithic group. Different factions exist, some more anti-war than others. Honestly, if they were more monolithic they'd probably be better at winning elections.
So who are they?
If you take of your ****ing partisan blinders, you might find that there's no logical inconsistency. IR is based on different fundamental questions and principles than political theory. Partisan labels don't apply, but you insist on using them. It's tiresome. But then again, abject partisans are the tiresomest people anywayGBear4Life said:I'm not taking a position on IR here, merely on logical consistency, so the claim of partisanship is poppycock.BearsWiin said:GBear4Life said:I wasn't taking a position on any general or specific foreign policy perspective. I'm criticizing *only* those who will, for example, implore the U.S. to intervene under an asserted pretense of human rights violations in a specific case but then lament the U.S. for doing just that under the same pretense (moral duty) in another case (e.g. Iraq).BearsWiin said:
Foreign policy does not conform to your crude partisan prism. That's why you don't understand it.
" ... in many cases American (liberals) want dictators overthrown, and other times they object, with little consistency in their declarations."
"The Left in particular likes to play the moral high ground strategy"
Take off the partisan blinders and look at schools of IR thought instead. It'll be less tiresome for the rest of us