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
The British had no illusions about what they were doing. They fully embraced their imperialistic ambitions and so did their general public. Unless the US public is fully willing to spend a ton of blood and money occupying a foreign land for long periods of time, you can't emulate the British.
edited 29th Sep '15 2:16:58 PM by nightwyrm_zero
I'm gonna go ahead and define modern as within my lifetime (last 30 yrs).
I mean that most people currently living in the US aren't willing to go to some crappy ME country, displace the natives living there and settle on the land. Hence, not a lot of support for foreign adventures since most don't see a huge benefit to themselves. Pretty much the only motivations left for supporting a war is either fear or idealism/being big damn heroes.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:07:26 PM by nightwyrm_zero
![]()
The French are at fault too, mucking around in Lebanon and Syria.
Actually from what I've read, the limeys promised the Jews in Palestine a homeland while assuring the Arabs that they would have their independence and curtail jewish immigration in order to get support against the Ottomans.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:09:49 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.![]()
![]()
They were ordered out by the UN. Also they anticipated the problems Israel would cause, and tried to create an all Arab state, it's just that the flow of refugees proved to great and the Jews had to much sympathy in the aftermath of the war for the policy to be carrier out effectively.
@Native Jovian - Except the half-assed measures ain't working. What part of that are you not getting? It's creating expectations with our allies, who are getting irritated, it's creating expectations with the Syrians, who have long since given up on us, it fulfills absolutely none of our interests since the war is still going on, people are still getting killed, and now we have a refugee crisis to deal with. Unless you say all that is in our interests, then no. And if it is in our interests, we're part of the problem.
And like Silas said, Obama had to be dragged into Libya (which, once Gaddafi was gone, he promptly neglected to help build back). He's been dragged into Yemen too (all those deaths from Saudi air power are on us, since its our active logistical support making that happen), and even now we're being dragged into Syria rather than leading a credible alternative approach, which is giving Putin political accolades with the US eating the cost. So, like I said before, he's not actually making decisions on a case by case basis. He either gets these lofty goals and then does only symbolic things about it, or is dragged into the conflict by an ally. In neither case does he plan for the aftermath. Obama isn't some visionary man with a plan....he's got too many screw ups in the foreign policy department to legitimately suggest that. He speaks differently than Bush, but the effect is ultimately the same: American international political capital is wasted on nonsense, except where foreigners think Bush is a buffoon, they think Obama naive.
@Jack - One example does not make it a fact to the exclusion of all other views. Come on dude. I've met plenty of people who are perfectly fine with the US.
@ironballs - The bear was roused regardless (and I think, instead of publically declaring someone must go without any intent to help make that happen, they could have worked with Putin behind the scenes to have them reign in Assad...which is what we're doing now, but with the constant anchor of continuing to insist on his departure, which keeps the Russians away from negotiating). And like I said, I know why Obama is doing it, especially before reeelection, but afterwards, he could have. And it's not like he's never made decisions that riled up the public before, so I know he's capable of doing it.
Bear in mind guys, I don't think Obama is always wrong or anything. Cuba and Iran are great examples of diplomacy leading the way. Our reactions to the various conflicts in Africa (barring Libya and Egypt) have also been good. But both of those endeavors had more planning than anything we've done in the Arab world, and the other conflicts didn't have us make crazy pronouncements.
On the British being better - Eh. They have a better track record in terms of post-conflict planning, but not so much in overall objectives.
I...wasnt actually refering to the Middle East or anything. I am refering to the Trail of Tears and all that. The blood is that of the natives.
And no, I am not saying or advocation for all white people to leave the U.S, that is silly. But it is a consequence history has left us to deal with.
My whole point is the following: We were discussing about what bad stuff the U.S has done, and I only challenged the assertion that "at least they had not spent loads of money and blood to occupy foreign territory for a prolonged amount of time". Not that everyone should go, or that they are terrible.
I am not keen on demonizing anyone. I think everyone is just as guilty. Which is probably why I like porn more than I like people. At least porn is not murderous and genocidal.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Well, not exactly...vore...guro...that kind of thing.
To be fair we mostly bought or conned the natives from their lands, violence not always mandatory.
However, when reading about that time period, I have never had sympathy for the Apache or Commanche, they were practically the poster children for Savage Indians.
Even other Tribes and the Mexicans feared them.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:23:38 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.Which totally justified nearly eradicating them to take over their homes and force them to march several miles in a drawn out genocide. Them being feared doesn't somehow make the things done to them less worse, Sky Cobra. That's one of the most unconvincing arguments I have ever heard for anything regarding Native Americans.
@Aszur; I think the problem came from the fact that everyone else was referring to doing those things right now in the modern day. Pretty sure everyone understood the historical events you were referring to, but they were talking about being willing to do them in the here and now. Which the vast majority of people are not! And given the mess that Britain created I'm not sure why anyone would have called them "better" at intervention. British intervention was basically that which was convenient to them.
![]()
Honestly I would have behaved the exact same way they did under the circumstances. Mind you I would have reacted to them scalping my citizens the same way the US army did.
The Cherokee were the ones forced on the Trail of Tears, I don't recall any death marches being done to the Apache, though I know many starved on reservation do to them not knowing how to farm, and corrupt Bureau of Indian Affairs officials stealing their supplies.
Edit: I often think of the Palestinians when thinking of some of the Native tribes. Which gives me more sympathy for the Palestinians, and less for the natives.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:29:44 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.I find that in their rush to correct our previous history we sometimes go to far in the other direction. For example I remember seeing many a documentary about the French and Indian War criticize the British for repatriating women taken captive in Indian raids, as the women apparently wished to stay with the Natives, one assumes out of Stockholm syndrome. Obviously seeing Yazidi and Christian women and girls captured by ISIS has changed my opinion on the matter.
![]()
One could argue that their very presence on the American continent counted as a provocation.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:37:04 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Sky Cobra, I have to pull out the old "two wrongs don't make a right" card here. Because attacks like that justify defending yourself. It doesn't justify doing those exact same things right back. That is quite frankly a disgusting argument to make in this. And, in fact, trying to claim a moral high ground in this subject is basically going to quickly mire you in quicksand; fact of the matter is Native territory was very successfully invaded and those living there displaced and killed.
Less presence and more actively building homes in territory long considered home by many of the natives they had conflict with. Not to mention that even the most benign interactions had a lot of culture conflict over what "owning land" meant.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:43:26 PM by AceofSpades

If the north was the south, things would be the same. The british were not less savage or more savage, really.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes