TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287826: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:16:30 PM

Just a quick reminder:

Yes, the Iraq war was a horrid failure. I don't think the interventionist side is disagreeing.

With the exception of Protagonist, most of us aren't neocons. Or whitewash their actions.

Also, while it's cute to pretend like Afghanistsn was some noble attempt at global policing by the US, let's call a spade a spade and say it was the 9/11 Revenge Tour.

America, like any other nation on the planet, does not intervene militarily in foreign affairs based on moral imperative, it does so based on its financial and political interests. The American public was out for blood and Afghanistan was the chosen target based on some intelligence links between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Then it turns out the latter were hiding in Pakistan and suddenly all the strategic objectives had always been about bringing the torch of democracy overseas.

I'm all for having a debate on the merits of interventionism, but let's not pretend American power is wielded with a benevolence power does not possess.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that responding to a massive attack on our people is not a moral action?

Furthermore, this view that acting on our interests is evidence that we don't care about morality is laughably naive. People are complex and can consider both practical interests (for moral reasons) and higher moral goals.

It's ridiculously simplistic to claim that the US can never be, or has never been, an entity that acts on moral axioms.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:16:49 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#287827: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:16:34 PM

I do think that if your argument is “leaving Saddam in power would have been worse than removing him”...well, considering the state of things today, I think that’s a claim that requires some evidence.

Oh God! Natural light!
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287828: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:17:23 PM

I do think that if your argument is “leaving Saddam in power would have been worse than removing him”...well, considering the state of things today, I think that’s a claim that requires some evidence.

If someone is making that argument then directly responding to their post shouldn't be a problem.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#287829: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:17:29 PM

Given our systemic actions treating Black people as second class citizens, our substantial issues with voter suppression, our gun violence, our lack of affordable healthcare, and our staggering income inequality, you could make a reasonable argument that someone should invade us and set up proper democratic elections and force us to rewrite our laws. Or at least depose the blatantly illegitimate and proto-fascist Trump admin and many of the Republican members of Congress.

Funny how that framing looks horrific when aimed at us, not some smaller country in South America or Asia or Africa.

Are you suggesting that responding to a massive attack on our people is not a moral action?

Uh, vengeance isn’t great policy in itself, but given that the hijackers were tied to Saudi Arabia and not Afghanistan or Iraq, yet we never did anything to Saudi Arabia...

Edited by wisewillow on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:19:09 AM

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#287830: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:17:52 PM

>Math792d: To be fair, IIRC they were hiding in Afghanistan, moved to Pakistan after we invaded.

The point about the USA picking targets based on strategic reasons and not morality is a pertinent one that feels like gets ignored a lot in these kinds of discussions.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 15th 2019 at 7:20:32 AM

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#287831: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:18:48 PM

To answer Forenperser's question: I think the Afghanistan invasion was a good idea. With Iraq, I'm probably best described as "ambivalent"-though it's more accurate to say I can't decide if it was poor execution or just a bad idea in general.

Nonetheless, I think it's totally acceptable for the US to use military intervention as a tool, we just need to get better at it.

Leviticus 19:34
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#287832: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:18:49 PM

If Saddam had stayed in power I’d have good money on him having been toppled during the Arab Spring (possibly with western help similar to Libya) and much of the Middle East having ended up in a former Yugoslavia style situation (so slow managed democratic growth with UN and NATO aid and some peacekeeping assistance) rather than the current situation.

The glory of hindsight.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287833: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:18:54 PM

Given our systemic actions treating Black people as second class citizens, our substantial issues with voter suppression, our gun violence, our lack of affordable healthcare, and our staggering income inequality, you could make a reasonable argument that someone should invade us and set up proper democratic elections and force us to rewrite our laws. Or at least depose the blatantly illegitimate and proto-fascist Trump admin and many of the Republican members of Congress.

Funny how that framing looks horrific when aimed at us, not some smaller country in South America or Asia or Africa.

If the Trump administration turned into Saddam or Assad I would happily welcome and possibly aid, foreign intervention.

Or for that matter Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:19:28 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#287834: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:20:02 PM

@fourthspartan: Fair enough.

With respect, archon, where’s your proof?

Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Aug 15th 2019 at 7:20:38 AM

Oh God! Natural light!
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#287835: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:20:20 PM

Silas: Oh yeah, that goes without saying. It was a horrible mess, and the fact that it was done half heartedly only makes it worse. My point there was that there weren’t really any “good” options.

I mean, Saddam’s government killed nearly as many Iraqis as the US did. And it’s not like they were collateral, either, he was engaging in straight up genocide. The Al-Anfal campaign deliberately killed close to 100,000 Kurds. 25,000 civilians were killed when he put down the uprisings in ‘91. That’s without even mentioning the untold number of civilians disappeared or otherwise murdered during those years, they’re still finding mass graves. He wasn’t going to stop that behavior, it would have only gotten more and more violent until the country imploded and then you would have had the same bloodbath we had in 2013 just with nobody there trying to keep some semblance of order.

[up] It’s right there. Saddam brutalized his own citizens and engaged in genocide and aggressive war. Even if the US hadn’t invaded, it wouldn’t have lasted long. I don’t even think it would have made it to the Arab Spring, given the intensity and increasing frequency of uprisings there.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:24:32 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Forenperser Foreign Troper from Germany Since: Mar, 2012
Foreign Troper
#287836: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:24:31 PM

It's late now, so I'm gonna have to cut the discussion short (maybe a good thing, calming down a little and all), but I'm gonna end it with one very direct question:

Who do you think was/is worse, Saddam or the IS?

Cause for me, that's not even a question, I think the IS did far worse, and far more wide-spread damage (geographically, with them being a world wide terrorist organization and all), so yeah, as far as bad choices go, Saddam would definitely have been the lesser evil I would chose.

Edited by Forenperser on Aug 15th 2019 at 1:25:10 PM

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#287837: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:26:17 PM

I reject the premise of the question, which seems to be that any attempt to remove Saddam (not simply the invasion of Iraq that occurred historically) would result in ISIS appearing.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287838: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:26:49 PM

Uh, vengeance isn’t great policy in itself, but given that the hijackers were tied to Saudi Arabia and not Afghanistan or Iraq, yet we never did anything to Saudi Arabia...

The Taliban gave direct aid and shelter to those who attacked us, they were absolutely connected.

And no, responding to attacks is a good policy. Any other policy is idiotic, it sends the clear message that you can be attacked with impunity. Which is never a good idea, it just leads to more harm in the long run.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#287839: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:28:32 PM

[up][up][up] The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The forces that brought IS to power after the collapse of the Iraqi government weren’t created by the US, those tensions were there before we were.

If Saddam’s government collapsed on its own IS could have still risen to prominence, or another group like it. It could have risen to power even with Saddam in place, if he lost sufficient central control of Iraq.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:30:59 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#287840: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:28:32 PM

As someone who is from a country that has regularly suffered the brunt of american interventionism (i.e the financial backing of a morally abhorrent military dictatorship that deeply damaged the moral and political culture and whose effects are still keenly felt to this day), I agree that the US often acts primarily in its own socio-economic interests at the expense of other countries, so I understand why a lot of people are pretty touchy about the idea of the US meddling in other countries' affairs.

That being said I can at least understand the argument behind the idea that never intervening can also be bad, regardless of the US's past crimes.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Aug 15th 2019 at 7:37:13 AM

Forenperser Foreign Troper from Germany Since: Mar, 2012
Foreign Troper
#287841: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:30:16 PM

Ah yeah, Saudi Arabia, that's another point. It really shows the US' hypocrisy in their Middle East policy best. Other islamic countries are fair game, but the worst one is off limits, because it provides the precious oil.

Anyways, good night for now.

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#287842: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:30:57 PM

@wisewillow: This is a bit of a false equivalency. The US has a long list of problems, sure, but the problem is not that severe either.

Having said that, I can definitely imagine situations where I'd support a foreign military presence. For example, let's say the southern states tried to form the Confederacy again (just, hypothetically) and we were in another civil war. I'd totally want the US to accept foreign military aid.

Leviticus 19:34
math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#287843: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:32:21 PM

It's ridiculously simplistic to claim that the US can never be, or has never been, an entity that acts on moral axioms.

No. I'm saying that, by virtue of being a state, an entity that, like a corporate body, has no moral imperative, the United States cannot commit moral acts. If it, in the act of executing its purpose (accumulating capital in the case of a corporation, accumulating power and influence in the case of a nation) happens to commit an act that is, to one extent or another a 'moral act,' that is a bug, not a feature. A means to an end as opposed to operationalized intent.

And I would argue that the deaths of three thousand Americans were thoroughly and throughly avenged by the time the US forces had been trundling along the Korengal Valley for half a decade.

Of course, if you look at it through the lens of American imperialism the subsequent occupation makes a lot more sense than renewed calls for American steadfastness and commitment to democracy as it prepares to install a new reactionary regime in the region, a process that began long before the Republican Party regained control of the Presidency.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287844: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:33:27 PM

Ah yeah, Saudi Arabia, that's another point. It really shows the US' hypocrisy in their Middle East policy best. Other islamic countries are fair game, but the worst one is off limits, because it provides the precious oil.

Anyways, good night for now.

What's actually hypocritical is criticizing the US for invading several countries while simultaneously decrying it for not invading another country.

The Taliban, as a government, directly funded the people who attacked us. The same could not be said of Saudi Arabia.

I for one am quite happy that the Bush administration did not start another war.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#287845: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:34:56 PM

[up] That was not a call to war. That was discussing how the rhetoric that we use when it comes to defending our policies in the area rings hollow when our allies are guilty of the same thing.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 15th 2019 at 7:36:06 AM

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#287846: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:36:05 PM

[up]X6 On a lucky day the people behind policy realise that it’s in the US’s interest to help others, it’s rare but it does happen, those are the good days.

In the end my strong stance on interventionism comes down to my socialism, I think we are stronger when we work together as a collective, when those with power help those without, I want to see those principles applied not just without my country but also to my country’s interaction with other countries.

Edited by Silasw on Aug 15th 2019 at 11:44:27 AM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#287847: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:36:32 PM

There is, in fact, a middle ground between supporting Saudi Arabia and invading Saudi Arabia, yes. [nja]

Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Aug 15th 2019 at 7:37:52 AM

Oh God! Natural light!
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#287848: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:41:47 PM

Given our systemic actions treating Black people as second class citizens, our substantial issues with voter suppression, our gun violence, our lack of affordable healthcare, and our staggering income inequality, you could make a reasonable argument that someone should invade us and set up proper democratic elections and force us to rewrite our laws. Or at least depose the blatantly illegitimate and proto-fascist Trump admin and many of the Republican members of Congress.

Funny how that framing looks horrific when aimed at us, not some smaller country in South America or Asia or Africa.

Honestly, as this country slides closer and closer to authoritarianism with each passing year, I can imagine a scenario in which such a thing would be welcome. Assuming the hypothetical existence of a foreign nation actually capable of pulling it off.

We're not at that point now, but it's not totally unthinkable that we could arrive there.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287849: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:43:53 PM

Honestly, as this country slides closer and closer to authoritarianism with each passing year, I can imagine a scenario in which such a thing would be welcome. Assuming the hypothetical existence of a foreign nation actually capable of pulling it off.

We're not at that point now, but it's not totally unthinkable that we could arrive there.

Indeed, the calculus that justifies intervention is not magically unable to be applied to the US.

Of course, considering our nuclear weapons and power it's not worth much as a counterfactual.

We will not be saved by any foreign nation if we fail to stop Reaction.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:44:20 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#287850: Aug 15th 2019 at 4:44:18 PM

Well, with hypocrisy, it should be noted that half the time a hypocrite is someone who speaks the truth while believing lies.

Also, it should be noted a lot of us are arguing at least partly from a position that interventionism is in America's interest. In the case of Saudi Arabia it just isn't.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, I think it would be essentially justifiable to invade it, it just would be very Stupid Good. You got to know when to fold them sometimes.

Leviticus 19:34

Total posts: 417,856
Top