Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Sergeant Rock]

US Army still in Western Europe since 1945?

Worked out well for me...I loved the Cold War 

Sarge

[Todd]

As for Walker, he has not governed as a moderate, and now that he's running for president, he is no longer branding himself as a moderate. But he has a truckload of other problems (not directly related to ideology) that I think will prevent him from being the nominee, if he doesn't pull a Perry first.

Scott Walker is a meat puppet.  If he gets the nod, I will have to write in a candidate.  My vote doesn't matter anyway; Oregon will go for the Democrat even if it's a mannequin in a wig.

[Ken B]

Yup, pretty freakin' tiresome. That's an interesting link. Our politicians and journalists have gotten so used to making that analogy they do it as a knee jerk to anything they are against. They always want us to remember history, unless they want us to forget it.

Thing is, it is so easy to be right in hindsight. Hell, I manage it every time, standing on my head. It is a far more astute man who can judge the future accurately. No, I'm not talking about knowing the future here, rather, being able to gauge a situation based on THIS set of circumstances, not making analogies based on past successes or failures.

FWIW, I am in favor of Obama's policies so far in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. They may end up being mistakes in the long run, or resounding successes, but at least he got out of the big freaking circular trench which American foreign policy has been marching in and tried to move things forward. Can you imagine the depth of the stupidity of our Cuba policy? People would actually not look at Rubio as a moron after his scathing indictment of Obama for changing it? US Army still in Western Europe since 1945? Still in South Korea since 1950? Will we occupy the whole world eventually? I would like to own Romania some day...

As for SK. I wonder, because I am utterly ruthless, if perhaps we should pull out of SK because then I expect NK to attack. I believe the world needs an object lesson in the folly of American isolationism.

And that is why you and the others are wrong about 1938. There are always self interested reasons for standing back, as the world did in 1938. There is always a prudential argument for letting monsters alone.  But you want to present it as a moral argument. And there are no good moral arguments for letting monsters alone. Isis are monsters.  There is no good moral argument for letting Isis terrorize Yazidi, or Shiites, or liberal Muslims, or anyone else; as there was none for letting Hitler terrorize Europe's Jews.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Hey Ken, lemme ax you sumpin'.

Are you pleased with the results of US military interventions of the last few decades? Do you think Libya is better off now than it was under Qaddafi? Is Iraq better now than under Saddam? How about Afghanistan - things are going great there? Or Somalia - did that intervention in the 90s do a lot of good?

As for me, I think South Korea is a rich industrial country with an army of its own, which can take care of its own problems.

[Gurn Blanston]

As for SK. I wonder, because I am utterly ruthless, if perhaps we should pull out of SK because then I expect NK to attack. I believe the world needs an object lesson in the folly of American isolationism.

And that is why you and the others are wrong about 1938. There are always self interested reasons for standing back, as the world did in 1938. There is always a prudential argument for letting monsters alone.  But you want to present it as a moral argument. And there are no good moral arguments for letting monsters alone. Isis are monsters.  There is no good moral argument for letting Isis terrorize Yazidi, or Shiites, or liberal Muslims, or anyone else; as there was none for letting Hitler terrorize Europe's Jews.

Don't confuse me with moralists. I am saying that every freaking situation that arises since  WWII is NOT freaking Hitler reincarnated and Chamberlain appeasing. I'm saying let's take all that history under advisement and deal with things on a case-by-case basis. I'm not even saying let's be isolationists. I am saying that Obama's decision IN THIS CASE to withdraw from Iraq after 12 years of war instead of making a permanent occupation out of it is a pleasant change from past practice.

If you think 'we' should still be there, you can always go occupy it yourself, instead of my nephew doing it. You don't need to characterize or mischaracterize anything I'm saying here, I can speak as plainly (or more plainly) as you can stand to hear.

That said. ISIS does need to be dealt with. Whether it is incumbent upon us to be the dealers is another question. I've lost a couple of dozens of friends and family in wars we have got into just since my late adolescence. All I want is some justification more compelling than 'if England hadn't appeased Hitler...'.

[Ken B]

Hey Ken, lemme ax you sumpin'.

Are you pleased with the results of US military interventions of the last few decades? Do you think Libya is better off now than it was under Qaddafi? Is Iraq better now than under Saddam? How about Afghanistan - things are going great there? Or Somalia - did that intervention in the 90s do a lot of good?

As for me, I think South Korea is a rich industrial country with an army of its own, which can take care of its own problems.

How is that analogous to honoring treaties, defending peaceful allies, or rolling back aggressors such as in the first gulf war? or collective defence in general?

Yes btw better in Fghanistan than under the Taliban. Iraq was better in 2010 than now after the witdrawal.  That is  a pertinent question too isn't it? Kuwait is better off than under Saddam.
But of course your questions are all based on the false assumption that only American actions have any effect. I think Egypt was better off under Mubarak, and we didn't overthrow him. Didn't conquer Sudan recently that I can recall. Things can go to hell anyway, right?

[San Antone]

I don't know if it this post was ignored because it was on the bottom of the previous page and overlooked when someone posted immediately after mine, or it was ignored because of its intrinsic worthlessness    but since it seems somewhat in line with the latest conversation I am reposting it:

Driving home from work I listened to an interview on All Things considered with the Presidential Spokesperson about the US policy towards ISIS (or ISIL as the administration says, why?) and for once I completely support Obama's policy, which is: no more US combat troops.  The US will offer support and help to the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, but no more US blood and treasure put into Iraq to (again) do what the Iraqis are obligated to do for themselves.

[Ken B]

I don't know if it this post was ignored because it was on the bottom of the previous page and overlooked when someone posted immediately after mine, or it was ignored because of its intrinsic worthlessness    but since it seems somewhat in line with the latest conversation I am reposting it:

Support without treasure? Please elucidate.

I agree we should help Iraq and the other countries fight Isis. I agree they have to do the bulk of it. I agree it has to be seen as an indigenous operation. But I am quite happy to supply a lot of bombs, and don't see why air support should be ruled out.

[San Antone]

Support without treasure? Please elucidate.

I agree we should help Iraq and the other countries fight Isis. I agree they have to do the bulk of it. I agree it has to be seen as an indigenous operation. But I am quite happy to supply a lot of bombs, and don't see why air support should be ruled out.

I don't know all of the detail of the administration's policy other than the 3,000 troops there mainly training and advising (whatever that means), and limited bombing but no escalation of US troops.  This is Iraq's fight.  If they cannot or will not defend their country today, the US going in and beating back ISIS and then handing it over to them just to see them let it go again is not a recipe for anything other than more US casualties for no reason.

[Todd]

As for SK. I wonder, because I am utterly ruthless, if perhaps we should pull out of SK because then I expect NK to attack. I believe the world needs an object lesson in the folly of American isolationism.

There it is, the false dichotomy.  Anyone who suggests more militarily restrained foreign policy is an isolationist.  Rubbish.

There are no moral arguments for letting evil people do evil things.  Moral arguments, however, are of limited value when discussing foreign policy.  Security and strategy and economic value are of more importance.  The US faced no security or strategic or economic risk from the genocide in Rwanda, so it did nothing.  Same thing in Congo.  (OK, the US didn't do nothing there, it just didn't help.)  I have seen no compelling arguments that ISIL presents a security or strategic threat significant enough to warrant larger scale US involvement.  We may be doing too much right now.  Arm people, switch sides, make arrangements - non-treaty arrangements - with some countries, and then switch sides again as needed.  Taking a more cold hearted view, it is simple to address your rhetorical questions.  Afghanistan represented a real security threat to the US since it harbored known enemies of the US, so the Taliban had to be removed.  Iraq in 1990 also presented a threat.  It did not represent a specific threat to the security of the US, but it did pose a strategic threat in a region in which the US has significant strategic and economic interests, so Saddam had to be ousted from Kuwait.  Iraq in 2003 did not represent any similar kind of threat.  The war was a mistake, and the aftermath has contributed to instability ever since.  Whether or not the people of Iraq are "better off", or were "better off" in 2010 or some other magical year, is basically irrelevant.  (And you really need to ask about which people.)  The US is worse off.

US actions since the collapse of the Soviet Union have more to do with aggressive expansion of influence than defending peaceful allies or collective defense.  The expansion of NATO to include countries right on Russia's borders was unmistakably aggressive and does absolutely nothing to enhance the security of the United States, or to improve its strategic position.  It puts the US in a position of having to defend countries that it cannot defend, except by the use of nuclear weapons.  That is a mistake.  NATO should have been, at most, expanded to include unified Germany, and better yet, it should have been dissolved and replaced with a new arrangement.  Since I am not running for office I can just say this: Poland, and Romania, and the Baltics are not worth the life of one American soldier, and they are worth very limited amounts of American money.  It is not the job of the United States to defend all nations, nor is it the job of the US to "make the world safe for democracy."  The US should start negotiating new treaties, reducing its obligations, and it should instead start working toward true collective security through international institutions, existing or new.  (Oh, before anyone brings up the platitude: it is true that democracies do not fight wars against each other.  They are usually busy clobbering non-democracies.)

Constantly bringing up 1938 is blatantly and fundamentally false.  The US - the world - does not face expansionist, militaristic threats from the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the most advanced military as it did way back then.  If the contention is that the world does face such a challenge, which country fits that bill now?

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't know if it this post was ignored because it was on the bottom of the previous page and overlooked when someone posted immediately after mine, or it was ignored because of its intrinsic worthlessness    but since it seems somewhat in line with the latest conversation I am reposting it:

Quote from: sanantonio on Today at 04:31:03 PM
    Driving home from work I listened to an interview on All Things considered with the Presidential Spokesperson about the US policy towards ISIS (or ISIL as the administration says, why?) and for once I completely support Obama's policy, which is: no more US combat troops.  The US will offer support and help to the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, but no more US blood and treasure put into Iraq to (again) do what the Iraqis are obligated to do for themselves.

I agree with that too.

I agree we should help Iraq and the other countries fight Isis. I agree they have to do the bulk of it. I agree it has to be seen as an indigenous operation. But I am quite happy to supply a lot of bombs, and don't see why air support should be ruled out. 

I agree with this, too. My major objection is to the perpetual occupation and 'Americanization' of countries that don't need or want it.

[Ken B]

There it is, the false dichotomy.  Anyone who suggests more militarily restrained foreign policy is an isolationist.  Rubbish.

There are no moral arguments for letting evil people do evil things.  Moral arguments, however, are of limited value when discussing foreign policy.  Security and strategy and economic value are of more importance.  The US faced no security or strategic or economic risk from the genocide in Rwanda, so it did nothing.  Same thing in Congo.  (OK, the US didn't do nothing there, it just didn't help.)  I have seen no compelling arguments that ISIL presents a security or strategic threat significant enough to warrant larger scale US involvement.  We may be doing too much right now.  Arm people, switch sides, make arrangements - non-treaty arrangements - with some countries, and then switch sides again as needed.  Taking a more cold hearted view, it is simple to address your rhetorical questions.  Afghanistan represented a real security threat to the US since it harbored known enemies of the US, so the Taliban had to be removed.  Iraq in 1990 also presented a threat.  It did not represent a specific threat to the security of the US, but it did pose a strategic threat in a region in which the US has significant strategic and economic interests, so Saddam had to be ousted from Kuwait.  Iraq in 2003 did not represent any similar kind of threat.  The war was a mistake, and the aftermath has contributed to instability ever since.  Whether or not the people of Iraq are "better off", or were "better off" in 2010 or some other magical year, is basically irrelevant.  (And you really need to ask about which people.)  The US is worse off.

US actions since the collapse of the Soviet Union have more to do with aggressive expansion of influence than defending peaceful allies or collective defense.  The expansion of NATO to include countries right on Russia's borders was unmistakably aggressive and does absolutely nothing to enhance the security of the United States, or to improve its strategic position.  It puts the US in a position of having to defend countries that it cannot defend, except by the use of nuclear weapons.  That is a mistake.  NATO should have been, at most, expanded to include unified Germany, and better yet, it should have been dissolved and replaced with a new arrangement.  Since I am not running for office I can just say this: Poland, and Romania, and the Baltics are not worth the life of one American soldier, and they are worth very limited amounts of American money.  It is not the job of the United States to defend all nations, nor is it the job of the US to "make the world safe for democracy."  The US should start negotiating new treaties, reducing its obligations, and it should instead start working toward true collective security through international institutions, existing or new.  (Oh, before anyone brings up the platitude: it is true that democracies do not fight wars against each other.  They are usually busy clobbering non-democracies.)

Constantly bringing up 1938 is blatantly and fundamentally false.  The US - the world - does not face expansionist, militaristic threats from the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the most advanced military as it did way back then.  If the contention is that the world does face such a challenge, which country fits that bill now?

Todd, suggesting we should leave Poland on its own if it is attacked, despite treaty obligations, is isolationism straight up. So there is no false dichotomy here. There are perhaps comments that do not pertain to you.

[Gurn Blanston]

There it is, the false dichotomy.  Anyone who suggests more militarily restrained foreign policy is an isolationist.  Rubbish.

There are no moral arguments for letting evil people do evil things.  Moral arguments, however, are of limited value when discussing foreign policy.  Security and strategy and economic value are of more importance.  The US faced no security or strategic or economic risk from the genocide in Rwanda, so it did nothing.  Same thing in Congo.  (OK, the US didn't do nothing there, it just didn't help.)  I have seen no compelling arguments that ISIL presents a security or strategic threat significant enough to warrant larger scale US involvement.  We may be doing too much right now.  Arm people, switch sides, make arrangements - non-treaty arrangements - with some countries, and then switch sides again as needed.  Taking a more cold hearted view, it is simple to address your rhetorical questions.  Afghanistan represented a real security threat to the US since it harbored known enemies of the US, so the Taliban had to be removed.  Iraq in 1990 also presented a threat.  It did not represent a specific threat to the security of the US, but it did pose a strategic threat in a region in which the US has significant strategic and economic interests, so Saddam had to be ousted from Kuwait.  Iraq in 2003 did not represent any similar kind of threat.  The war was a mistake, and the aftermath has contributed to instability ever since.  Whether or not the people of Iraq are "better off", or were "better off" in 2010 or some other magical year, is basically irrelevant.  (And you really need to ask about which people.)  The US is worse off.

US actions since the collapse of the Soviet Union have more to do with aggressive expansion of influence than defending peaceful allies or collective defense.  The expansion of NATO to include countries right on Russia's borders was unmistakably aggressive and does absolutely nothing to enhance the security of the United States, or to improve its strategic position.  It puts the US in a position of having to defend countries that it cannot defend, except by the use of nuclear weapons.  That is a mistake.  NATO should have been, at most, expanded to include unified Germany, and better yet, it should have been dissolved and replaced with a new arrangement.  Since I am not running for office I can just say this: Poland, and Romania, and the Baltics are not worth the life of one American soldier, and they are worth very limited amounts of American money.  It is not the job of the United States to defend all nations, nor is it the job of the US to "make the world safe for democracy."  The US should start negotiating new treaties, reducing its obligations, and it should instead start working toward true collective security through international institutions, existing or new.  (Oh, before anyone brings up the platitude: it is true that democracies do not fight wars against each other.  They are usually busy clobbering non-democracies.)

Constantly bringing up 1938 is blatantly and fundamentally false.  The US - the world - does not face expansionist, militaristic threats from the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the most advanced military as it did way back then.  If the contention is that the world does face such a challenge, which country fits that bill now?

Ditto. 



(well, there is nothing I disagree with here, and well said, too.)

[Ken B]

Ditto. 



(well, there is nothing I disagree with here, and well said, too.)

Ditto? Poland, having been invaded and occupied by Russia many times, when free asks to join a defence alliance. It is allowed to. And this is aggression?

I don't want to be testy but WTF are you two smoking?

[North Star]

Constantly bringing up 1938 is blatantly and fundamentally false.  The US - the world - does not face expansionist, militaristic threats from the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the most advanced military as it did way back then.  If the contention is that the world does face such a challenge, which country fits that bill now?

The Chinese have a reasonable claim for more lebensraum. Perhaps they should buy Canada.

[Gurn Blanston]

Ditto? Poland, having been invaded and occupied by Russia many times, when free asks to join a defence alliance. It is allowed to. And this is aggression?

I don't want to be testy but WTF are you two smoking?

Well, we really need to go in a occupy the border with Russia. At least until Putin dies...

[Ken B]

The Chinese have a reasonable claim for more lebensraum. Perhaps they should buy Canada.

There WAS talk about a war with Denmark a few years ago!  Sneaky Danes tried to claim Toronto, or some island, or the North Pole or something. My attitude was, they can have Joni Mitchell, but anything else we're fightin' for.

Btw, my last name traces back eventually to Danish. So I had a foot in both camps. 

[Todd]

Todd, suggesting we should leave Poland on its own if it is attacked, despite treaty obligations, is isolationism straight up. So there is no false dichotomy here. There are perhaps comments that do not pertain to you.

No, it is not isolationism.  It is cold calculation.  To put it as bluntly as possible: Poland is expendable.  You have offered a false dichotomy.

Ditto? Poland, having been invaded and occupied by Russia many times, when free asks to join a defence alliance. It is allowed to. And this is aggression?

I don't want to be testy but WTF are you two smoking?

Perhaps I was unclear - but I am confident I was not - but it is the United States that aggressively expanded its influence by recklessly pushing for the expansion of NATO to the east, not Poland.  Your response is disingenuous. 

The Chinese have a reasonable claim for more lebensraum. Perhaps they should buy Canada.

Canada is a majority owned subsidiary of the United States.  The Chinese will have better results expanding into Siberia.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Todd, suggesting we should leave Poland on its own if it is attacked, despite treaty obligations, is isolationism straight up. So there is no false dichotomy here. There are perhaps comments that do not pertain to you.

Ditto? Poland, having been invaded and occupied by Russia many times, when free asks to join a defence alliance. It is allowed to. And this is aggression? 

To clarify:

Yes, we have treaty obligations with a number of countries. However, it is my firm belief that NATO should have been closed down after the Cold War. The security of Europe should be the primary task of Europeans.

The Baltic States (so they tell us) are afraid of Russia. They're so scared, in fact, that they're not even willing to pay the 2% of the state budget for the military that NATO countries are supposed to pay. Meanwhile, implying that they can rely on a Big Brother from across the ocean to take care of them sets up a false sense of security, and risks embroiling the USA in potentially disastrous conflicts it can't win.

Second, Poland or any country is of course allowed to ask to join NATO or any other alliance. The existing members of such an alliance are however under no obligation to accept anyone who wants to join.

[mc ukrneal]

I don't want to be testy but WTF are you two smoking?

I have restrained myself from calling you out lately (I mean, really, Palin a better option? I don't think so. They don't come much nuttier). But as I was thinking the exact same thing, I think they must be smoking something pretty strong. Perhaps we agree for all the wrong reasons, but it must be a miracle!