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
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.
Exactly my thoughts, I despise Saudi Arabia but I don't think a military intervention would be wise. Not now, and certainly not just after 9/11.
It's not hypocritical to want the Taliban gone while tolerating the existence of Saudi Arabia.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:46:01 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIt would pretty much be impossible as things look at present.
Of course, the minute the fash inside the United States government actually start feeling threatened by any outside powers in a shooting war is probably when the nukes go off anyway.
So it's a good thing the largest and most powerful military on the planet isn't currently helmed by a reactionary geriatric at the head of a money-worshipping death cult using US resources with implicitly genocidal aims.
I mean, it would suck if any of that were true. Just awful.
On the dubious plus side I'm looking forward to seeing the Sonderweg Theory applied to America and what logic loops that will involve.
Edited by math792d on Aug 15th 2019 at 1:52:46 PM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.No. One. Is. Calling. For. An. Invasion. Of. Saudi. Arabia.
Seriously, its a pretty big strawman. Can we stop pretending that that is what was said?
Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 15th 2019 at 7:53:15 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. -FighteerI'm still going to call the "intervening is bad because more people die" thing a Perfect Solution Fallacy, because it takes the fact that death is an inevitable part of intervention and concludes that because there is no way to intervene without causing mass death, we're better off just not doing it. So we let the guy causing thousands of death in the country he runs go free because he's not causing tens of thousands of deaths. Go us.
i'm tired, my friendThe thing to keep in mind with a hypothetical scenario where the US turns evil and needs to be invaded, is that such a scenario would actually imply the US is facing severe stability problems and isn't as powerful as it used to be. You don't just wake up one day and turn your democratic state into a fascist dictatorship.
Also it's pretty likely that the US would be in a civil war under those circumstances. You'd have states seceding, military leaders defecting, militia uprisings, etc. In fact, it could even be the group being invaded isn't the actual US government so much as the other side of a civil war.
Leviticus 19:34Seriously, its a pretty big strawman. Can we stop pretending that that is what was said?
Either Saudi Arabia was a candidate worth invading or it wasn't.
If it wasn't then there is nothing wrong with not invading them but choosing to invade the Taliban. If it was then an argument could be made that it was hypocritical to invade the Taliban and not them, but that would be an argument in favor of invasion.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:59:43 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangTrump, in a weird sideways move, apparently wants the U.S. to grow again...by buying Greenland. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/457637-trump-has-asked-aides-about-possibility-of-us-acquiring-greenland
The original reporting on this was Wall Street Journal, but since they have a paywall, this is the link you get. Anyway, I smell a "I'm the president who brought in the 51st state" ego move, without conceding to the Democrats on the other areas they'd be happy to make states...
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
x4 Then you're putting your quest to topple whichever regime is in question over the lives of the people living there. That is argueably a better example of the Perfect Solution Fallacy: they can't be toppled if less people die, so more have to die instead.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 15th 2019 at 8:02:13 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. -FighteerEdited by KazuyaProta on Aug 15th 2019 at 7:02:53 AM
Watch me destroying my country
x5 If you wanna split hairs it could also be an argument decrying the invasion of the Taliban. Not that that's much better.
x3 And you think the people living under an oppressive, brutal authoritarian regime would prefer life under it to liberation? If done right, the increase in death would be short term, after which a more Democratic government which would cause far less deaths than the last would be installed.
Lemme turn it around like Willow did: if the US government did become as oppressive as those of Syria and Turkmenistan, would you still oppose allies/other benevolent powers attempt to topple it because it'd just lead to more death?
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Aug 15th 2019 at 8:12:41 AM
i'm tired, my friend@Azure Paladin With invading Saudi Arabia, I don't think anyone is even necessarily saying that was what was being proposed.
Basically, the person was arguing that there was a contradiction between being ok with military interventionism in the Middle East while not intervening in Saudi Arabia (essentially, the argument boils down to "If you want to fight the Taliban, why don't you fight Saudi Arabia too?"). There are approximately 3 answers to this: Either stop condoning interventionism, call for war with Saudi Arabia, or come up with a way to reconcile the two.
The third option requires one to come up with reasons not to invade Saudi Arabia specifically that do not apply to the Taliban.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
I can't believe this. You're honestly arguing for a course of action, that you know would cost more lives, on the off chance that the occupation afterwords doesn't turn into a flustercluck? You'd be gambling with people's lives that everything turns out okay afterwords. I'd think recent history would show the cost of that sort of wishful thinking.
I don't know about you, but if a violent solution would actively make things worse, then I think we should back down.
I pointedly did not rule out war altogether. I'm conflicted in several directions on the matter. I was saying that we should think long and hard before any military confrontation, and not be so cavalier about the casualties and the cost.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 15th 2019 at 8:17:50 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. -Fighteerre: buying Greenland
Now you're (Trump) is just being silly,you can't just buy a country,typically you invade and occupy a country and then annex it.I have a feeling buying a country would probably deplete the treasury of say..billions or trillions,or maybe he'll borrow a load of money to fiance to purchase the Greenland
have a listen and have a link to my discord server![]()
All I'm arguing is arguing against that particular argument. There are of lot of justifications for not intervening, but that one sticks out to me as the most flimsy by far. Furthermore, never did I argue for even a second that we should just go in and fuck the consequences. I am simply arguing against the idea that we should just shrug our shoulders and go "well, sucks to be you".
My question is, if not intervention, then what? We just politely ask the oppressive government/dictator to stop being oppressive?
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Aug 15th 2019 at 8:27:01 AM
i'm tired, my friendThis entire argument about interventionism is getting rather heated, but I'm going to request specifically that ~PhysicalStamina and ~AzurePaladin to take it down a few notches.
In fact, as this is starting to occupy the entire thread and become more of a general discussion, it would be best to move it to the International Interventions and their comparability
thread.
I don't understand Trump wanting to buy Greenland.
Why does Trump want to buy Greenland? Why does he want to buy a country at all? And why does he want it to be Greenland, specifically?
This is so random.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Is this the dumbest thing Trump has tried since taking office, or have I just failed to keep previous stupid actions in my memory?
My musician page

If Trump or the GOP decided to turn the country into a One Party State, then a NATO-led invasion to USA would be necessary. I would be sad because it would mean that Western Europe would keep ruling the world, but whatever.
Watch me destroying my country