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 he was responding to Romney saying, that he’d work “with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values, and then ensure that they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks and helicopters and fighter jets.”
To which Gary responded by saying:
“My understanding right now is that the Syrian rebels are – that a quarter of the Syrian rebels are al-Qaida,” the former New Mexico governor said when asked of Romney’s comments. “Wow, that sounds like we should be arming al-Qaida in Syria and I couldn’t be more facetious. It’s the continued U.S. policy of military intervention that has unintended consequences that have resulted in hundreds of millions of enemies to this country that but for these military interventions I’m going to argue wouldn’t exist.”
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
![]()
His past interviews weren't very critical. And if Stewart somehow manages to be a better journalist then actual journalists...I'll just give up.
EDIT:
"It’s the continued U.S. policy of military intervention that has unintended consequences that have resulted in hundreds of millions of enemies to this country that but for these military interventions I’m going to argue wouldn’t exist.”
I've got to agree with him on this. Intervention rarely leads to positive outcomes in the end. It's a great irony of humanity that once someone starts a war the children will continue it to avenge their fallen fathers. And then their children will avenge their fathers...
edited 13th Oct '12 1:22:34 AM by thatguythere47
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?![]()
While it's not like there would be no animosity toward America if we didn't intervene all the goddamn, there would certainly be a shitton less of it. I mean, look at how little animosity is flung at, say, Switzerland, which doesn't have an interventionist streak.
...Sorry to break it to you, but Stewart is already a better journalist than "actual" journalists...
edited 13th Oct '12 2:36:39 AM by deathpigeon
In fairness most of the time the horrible forces backed by NATO were fighting the horrible forces backed by The Soviet Union.
If we had let pro-capitalist forces fight there own battles then the Pro-Communist who has Soviet backing (and weapons) would have triumphed
And Greece, all of Korea, probably Turkey, Afghanistan, would have gone red.
I'll choose the dictators who are loyal to us over the ones who aren't.
edited 13th Oct '12 2:49:57 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Because doing bad things is always justified by the enemy doing those same bad things.
...If you couldn't tell, I don't have a very positive view of the actions by the US in the Cold War.
And then there's that too. Not only did we do horrible terrible things to fight communism, we also armed our future enemies, and propped up dictatorships for years after the fall of the USSR destroying much of our credibility in many of those countries. We did horrible things for a stupid cause that led to horrible things happening to us. Wasn't the Cold War fun?
edited 13th Oct '12 2:51:10 AM by deathpigeon
![]()
![]()
All I'm saying is that A Doomed Moral Victor is really just a loser. You can claim the high ground all you want, but it won't mean a damn thing once your allies start dropping like flies.
![]()
Really? Which one?
edited 13th Oct '12 2:59:16 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
Remind me, again, why we were fighting communism which would, which would make doing none of those being a Doomed Moral Victor, and remind me, again, why the only options were play as dirty as them or lose?
I mean, there are plenty of ways we could've fought communism that wouldn't require propping up horrible dictatorships, such as economic sanctions, and providing countries that went with a more democratic form of government, not dictatorships of any kind, whether they be for or against communism, trade benefits, or some form of unrestricted trade where we could show the people in the communist nations what they could get from being a more capitalist nation, or diplomatic efforts to contain communism to the USSR, and influence them to not prop up horrible dictatorships of their own, or some combination of the above or other methods.
Don't forget about our buddies Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak.
![]()
We supported the Afghan Mujahideen. Al-Qaeda was the Islamic terrorist with roots stemming from the former group. But they are not one and the same.
We did not put Hussein in power. And Mubarak was fair for his day.
"such as economic sanctions"
And when has economic sanctions ever stopped any dictator?
In fact there's a lot of evidence that economic sanction are counter efficient.
"where we could show the people in the communist nations what they could get from being a more capitalist nation"
Do you remember the two countries that tried to give up on Communism and become Capitalist nations? Remember Hungary and Czechoslovakia? Remember how the Soviet Union responded?
edited 13th Oct '12 3:35:20 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
We still trained them for our stupid war with the USSR.
Ok, you have a point with Saddam, and we still propped up a dictator, and continued propping up a dictator long after the USSR had fallen.
And, uh, a lot. I mean, we're currently crippling Iran's economy with sanctions, and we'd probably have caused North Korea to collapse by now, with them, if they didn't throw a tantrum and threaten to nuke everyone whenever they need economic help.
Ok, that article looks into where sanctions are used on their own, such as with Cuba, but I not only gave other methods of fighting it than just sanctions, but I suggested using more than one method.
Hungary's got crushed by Soviet troops, and, yet, in 1989 they had a successful peaceful changeover, after the USSR had been significantly weakened because of our economy outperforming theirs and more liberal leaders had taking power who were less likely to see this sort of thing as bad, and, by 1991, Hungary was a free, much more democratic, and much more capitalist country.
Czechoslovakia got invaded, which, I should note, sparked protests across the Eastern Bloc, such as in Moscow itself
, and neither Romania nor Albania participated. Again, like with Hungary, there was a successful peaceful changeover in 1989 after the USSR had been weakened economically and gotten liberal leaders.
Both of those are examples where revolutions got squashed when the USSR was at the heights of its power, and were very successful once we weakened it economically. In the end, that, combined with a shift of power to more liberal leaders, such as Gorbachev, is how we took down the USSR, in the end. They were defeated by economics, which sanctions could've achieved just as well as tons and tons of wars, and by a liberalization of its leadership.
Oh, and you didn't answer my questions. Why were we fighting communism? Why did we not take any of the other less morally reprehensible methods to fight communism?
No. I'm a pacifist with communistic leanings, though I have some reservations. In the Cold War, we did war after war that propped up horrible governments and interfered with the sovereignty of other nations to combat a political system that, while flawed, I find to be less bad than it is made out to be.

What makes you say that?
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016