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

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#102226: Sep 29th 2015 at 3:45:38 PM

Genocide: The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially of a particular group or nation.

Yeah, I'd say that what happened to most of them at least roughly fits under what genocide means. Particularly as war was often a tool to accomplish just that. Aside of basically wanting land that was already occupied, how exactly do you thinking what was done was somehow justified?

edited 29th Sep '15 3:47:02 PM by AceofSpades

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#102227: Sep 29th 2015 at 3:45:55 PM

No, what happened to the Native Americans was definitely genocide. Not just in effect but also by intention.

Any attempt to claim otherwise is denial.

edited 29th Sep '15 3:46:16 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#102228: Sep 29th 2015 at 3:48:47 PM

Except the half-assed measures ain't working. What part of that are you not getting?
The part where invading would make it better. Remember the conversation about where sometimes — by which I mean almost always — doing that causes more harm than good?

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.
Which is shitty. But the world's a shitty place, sometimes, and invading won't magically make it all better. In fact, it'd almost certainly make everything a lot worse. You think that there would be fewer civilian casualties if you add an invading army to a civil war? You think the refugees would stop? I am deeply skeptical, to say the least.

And like Silas said, Obama had to be dragged into Libya (which, once Gaddafi was gone, he promptly neglected to help build back).
The mission wasn't "make Libya better", it was "stop Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people". We did that. Unless you think we should launch a full scale invasion of every country that has internal issues (hint: this is all of them) and remake them in our image. Remind me again what our record is on that?

He speaks differently than Bush, but the effect is ultimately the same:
Except that we don't have American troops invading foreign countries. So in other words, not at all the same.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#102229: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:06:24 PM

When Schools overlook introverts

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Skycobra51 A suitable case for treatment from The US of A Since: Nov, 2013 Relationship Status: Only knew I loved her when I let her go
A suitable case for treatment
#102230: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:12:05 PM

[up]Its about time someone got the message. Being introverted myself, I remember dreading collaborative learning or group assignments in High School.

edited 29th Sep '15 4:19:16 PM by Skycobra51

Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#102231: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:25:23 PM

@Native Jovian - For someone who just claimed this ain't black and white, you're attributing invasion to never being good? Right, thats not extremist at all. I never said its always a good idea, but in THIS SPECIFIC CASE, yes. With long term planning, anyway. The world needs to stop this conflict.

So world's a shitty place, let's not doing anything? Riiight. Because shirking duty to the common good because things might be tough at first is somehow a viable strategy. We're not taking in refugees either. We are literally doing nothing to help, peaceful or otherwise. And yes, I do think casualties would be less over time, because the war would be ended quickly with a sufficient international force. Sititng on our ass and crowing how we're not contributing directly to the death and thus we're somehow absolved even as hundreds of thousands die? The Ostritches want their holes back.

I didn't say we needed to invade Libya (expressly said otherwise, but you like to pick and choose what you here, so whatever). I said we needed to help build it back up. Because guess what? We broke it, we bought it. Stopping a massacre doesn't mean all that much if we destroy and then fail to restore order. That just creates longer term suffering. I have also said that we shouldn't invade every country, so stop strawmanning me. I said in exceptional situations, we must. Syria counts as much.

No, we just contribute to the bloodbath by proxy. Just because American troops aren't on the ground, does not mean the US isn't mucking up the world anyway. That you don't get that through your thick head, I can't do anything about. You seem to think force should never be used ever, that the world can catch fire and somehow not affect the US. Climb down from that ivory tower and realize the world is too interconnected for that isolationist bullshit.

AngelicBraeburn from Eccentric California Since: Jan, 2015
Skycobra51 A suitable case for treatment from The US of A Since: Nov, 2013 Relationship Status: Only knew I loved her when I let her go
A suitable case for treatment
#102233: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:36:04 PM

Well, its nice to know that I'm not the only one for intervention in Syria. Unfortunately by the time we get our shit together, it'll probably be too late.

Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#102234: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:38:11 PM

Any intervention we make will have to be very carefully planned and we're going to also have to plan out at least a decades worth of reconstruction afterwards.

A sudden invasion founded on equal parts dick waving and delusions of moral superiority are the exact causes of the mess in the first place.

Oh really when?
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#102236: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:43:27 PM

[up][up][up][up] Libyans were already rebelling against the Gadaffi regime, though. There was going to be civil war and instability with or without American involvement.

As for Syria, isn't part of the concern that, given the nature of many of the rebel groups, training and arming them might turn out to be a repeat of the Taliban in the 80's?

edited 29th Sep '15 4:45:16 PM by RavenWilder

Skycobra51 A suitable case for treatment from The US of A Since: Nov, 2013 Relationship Status: Only knew I loved her when I let her go
A suitable case for treatment
#102237: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:45:57 PM

[up]Gaddafi interestingly enough as insane as he was, set up Libya to fall like a house of cards if he were removed.

The kurds are probably a safe bet though.

[down]The moderates are also to blame by the fact they let the forigen fighters join in the first place.

edited 29th Sep '15 4:53:11 PM by Skycobra51

Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#102238: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:47:00 PM

[up][up] Initially their were more moderate groups. However Obama waited to long to intervene, and those groups were destroyed.

edited 29th Sep '15 4:47:09 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#102239: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:49:26 PM

The Kurds are indeed the best option but Turkey would pitch a fit. They're already sending direct support to ISIS to wipe them out.

And unfortunately Turkey is a necessary evil.

Like I said, any intervention is going to have to be very carefully planned.

Oh really when?
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#102240: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:58:16 PM

[up][up][up] By that point they were being soundly beaten, and their was no hope for US intervention. They had little choice in the matter.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#102241: Sep 29th 2015 at 4:59:39 PM

@Raven Wilder - That civil war was won. That's not the issue. The issue was not helping in the reconstruction afterwards. In a nation where the dictator WAS the state, where there was little in the way of civil society training beyond the cult of personality of the dear colonel, a new bureaucracy had to be trained from scratch.

As for Syria, yes, that's the fear. Thats why we shouldn't do this half-assed kind of proxy intervention there, which is the current strategy. The only solution in Syria that actually solves the problems would be a full scale, multinational intervention, for a long period of time. IF you want to solve it. If not, we should admit it and move on. Not insist on some kind of moral highground we have no intention of enforcing.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#102243: Sep 29th 2015 at 6:01:30 PM

For someone who just claimed this ain't black and white, you're attributing invasion to never being good?
No. I said "almost" for a reason. An invasion is a humanitarian crisis all by itself — there are very, very few circumstances where invading can improve the situation. It's a bit like saying that setting off a bomb is almost never the best way to put out a fire. 99 times out of 100, the situation just isn't that bad, and you end up causing more harm than good.

In very rare cases, you get something akin to an oil well fire, where yes, the best way to stop it is with explosives. This isn't even a final option or a last resort after you've tried all other alternatives. Most often, doing nothing and letting the situation resolve itself is a better solution in the long run.

I'm unconvinced that Syria is one of these cases.

So world's a shitty place, let's not doing anything?
No, we do the best we can. But sometimes the best option we have is still shitty. "The situation as it stands now is shitty" doesn't automatically mean that invading will be an improvement.

We're not taking in refugees either. We are literally doing nothing to help, peaceful or otherwise.
And if we were doing more to make the situation better, I'd be thrilled. No argument there.

And yes, I do think casualties would be less over time, because the war would be ended quickly with a sufficient international force.
We threw the bulk of the US military, plus international allies, at Iraq and Afghanistan, and that certainly wasn't ended quickly. And neither of those countries had any significant international support, while the Assad regime has Russia in its corner. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were ultimately mistakes, and I see nothing to suggest that an invasion of Syria would be any better.

I didn't say we needed to invade Libya (expressly said otherwise, but you like to pick and choose what you here, so whatever). I said we needed to help build it back up. Because guess what? We broke it, we bought it.
You're saying that we should rebuild it because we broke it. I'm saying that we didn't break it. It broke itself. We weren't responsible for the protests or Gaddafi's response to them — we just stopped it from turning into a massacre. Before, you were saying that it's our responsibility to not sit idly by and watch humanitarian crises unfold. In Libya, we intervened to prevent a humanitarian crisis, exactly as you suggest (and I agree with the decision to do so). But now you're suggesting that that wasn't enough, and it's also our duty to rebuild the country afterward? So which is it? Are you really suggesting that if we do anything at all to intervene in a situation, then we're on the hook for the fate of the entire country until some arbitrary point in the future, because "hey, you agreed to a short term and sharply limited intervention in order to prevent mass murder, now you have to go through the incredibly long, complicated, and expensive problem of rebuilding the country, too"?

Suffice to say, I disagree with that assertion.

I have also said that we shouldn't invade every country, so stop strawmanning me.
You've suggested that we have a duty to intervene in the case of a humanitarian crisis. You've also suggested that if we intervene at all, we have a duty to rebuild the country following the intervention. "Should we do this for every country that has internal issues that lead to humanitarian problems?" seems like a reasonable question in that case, not a strawman.

I said in exceptional situations, we must. Syria counts as much.
"Exceptional" is an arbitrary non-distinction. When does one cross the line between "typical" and "exceptional" when discussing atrocities? Is it an average thing? If violence gets worse worldwide, does the standard for what counts as "exceptional" go up? "Exceptional situation" isn't a legitimate standard, it's a post-hoc justification for decisions already made.

No, we just contribute to the bloodbath by proxy. Just because American troops aren't on the ground, does not mean the US isn't mucking up the world anyway. That you don't get that through your thick head, I can't do anything about. You seem to think force should never be used ever, that the world can catch fire and somehow not affect the US. Climb down from that ivory tower and realize the world is too interconnected for that isolationist bullshit.
I've been quite clear from the beginning that I think we should take whatever course of action will best resolve the situation. If that means invading, then call in the troops. I'm not opposed to armed response, even to the point of invasion and occupation if necessary. I just don't think that's the best response in the vast, vast majority of cases, and that oftentimes doing nothing is a better choice than invading.

edited 29th Sep '15 6:04:02 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Skycobra51 A suitable case for treatment from The US of A Since: Nov, 2013 Relationship Status: Only knew I loved her when I let her go
A suitable case for treatment
#102244: Sep 29th 2015 at 6:08:58 PM

[up]That logic worked really well for the the Armenian genocide. But then again, who remembers them?

edited 29th Sep '15 6:18:30 PM by Skycobra51

Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#102245: Sep 29th 2015 at 6:13:03 PM

Everyone not forced to keep quiet about it to keep Turkey appeased.

Oh really when?
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#102246: Sep 29th 2015 at 6:50:09 PM

[up][up][up]And I'd normally agree. But I think Syria is one of those situations where it needs to happen. Burning itself out isn't a possibility when the borders are uncontrolled and you have a population of 18 million.

On Libya, it wouldn't have been expensive. It is a smaller nation than Iraq by population, also more homogenous and the vast majority being within 30 minutes of the coast. And yeah, you break it you bought it actually is a thing. Yes, Libya was gonna break by itself, but we elected to hurry it along. That places some (not all, but some) responsibility to help the people rebuild it, especially since we knew in advance they had no capacity to do it on their own with that madman literally WAS the state. Not doing so has created the current situation where there is a (thankfully) low level civil war there again. Not saying we should intervene in that conflict at this stage, but the fault for it getting to that lies with NATO abandoning the people once Gaddafi died. Not thinking about what would happen after was foolish.

As fore exceptionality, I told you before, it's like porn. You know it when you see it. And in Syria's case, it actually IS exceptional in its statistics.

Also, Russia supporting Assad would not have been an issue if we hadn't bothered to call for his ouster. We could have used back channels to get Russia to make him back off, in exchange for making sure they picked the next leader and kept their interests in check.

edited 29th Sep '15 6:55:12 PM by FFShinra

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#102247: Sep 29th 2015 at 7:07:04 PM

I'm curious. Amid this fascinating discussion, which of the various sides do you propose we take in Syria?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#102248: Sep 29th 2015 at 7:07:34 PM

Side with the Russians and rebuild the nation together like we did in Kosovo.

Oh really when?
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#102249: Sep 29th 2015 at 7:33:33 PM

So, with Assad, the dictator against whom all these revolts are occurring, who gassed his own people?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#102250: Sep 29th 2015 at 7:38:00 PM

Part of why I think the only way to solve Syria is through full scale intervention is to avoid taking a particular faction's side in any of this.


Total posts: 417,856
Top