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
None of us were claiming anyone was proud of it, either, or that anyone should be. In fact, whether or not someone should be proud was never even a question anyone was asking in this conversation. The point is I find it highly unlikely that Hillary Clinton is going to go start another war or conflict the way Handle thinks she is. And if she does, there's going to have to be a preceding incident because the president can't just do a thing like that without cause.
Also, I'm pretty sure that congressional reps do in fact pay attention to more than just American media, but who are your representatives going to trust more, the people from your own country and who are supposedly on your side and who you trust to give you good information because you basically work with them, or foreign news outlets?
edited 12th Jul '16 7:53:47 PM by AceofSpades
Guys, I was trying to be polite with the "pride" thing. I think voting for a war of aggression makes you a fucking asshole. Even without proper knowledge she should have been against it. It was a mistake even with the knowledge she thought she had.
And considering even Obama has his drones kill everywherenote , I'm not so sure you guys won't be invading again. And you guys just said, that your higher-ups are masters in self-delusion. How's that reassuring?
![]()
That's not actually an accurate analogy of the government at all.
What makes you think we were trying to be reassuring, or again that this kind of commentary was the point of the conversation? And again, even with all the 'self delusion' there was a ready made excuse for the whole thing that preceded that; 9/11. We don't have a 9/11 of this decade. We have a war-weary populace much more inclined to question any such action, and one that wants the troops to come home. There needs to be a preceding incident that, again, "allows" the situation to happens, that can be used as a reason.
There's not exactly much reason I'm seeing that Hillary could use right now, even if I believed she wanted to do such a thing.
edited 12th Jul '16 8:03:36 PM by AceofSpades
Except thats simplistic in the extreme. Assuming the evidence had been real and given Saddam's track record and the political environment at the time of not wanting to once again do nothing until its too late ensured that such a vote in the negative would be seen, as I said before, as gross negligence.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Gross negligence seems to be a doctrine, in US policy, both foreign and domestic. Not much different. As for your track record on dictators, not only do I call bullshit, but, assuming that were correct, why shouldn't I use the US's track record on frequently spilling foreign blood to expect them to do so again in the future?
edited 12th Jul '16 8:14:42 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
Had that evidence been real? Yes it would have been seen as such because then Saddam would have launched yet another war of conquest. And given that, in the aftermath of 9/11, errant regimes such as his (or the Taliban's or whoever) were seen as safe havens for those who would wish the United States harm, only the most naive would (and did) vote no.
That the evidence turned out to be false was just after the fact justification for such a vote.
You guys seem to be arguing from two fundamentally incapable view points. For Handle and Anticellian(?) I don't think it matters whether the evidence was real or not.
I'm not sure if that's right or wrong, but Handle's viewpoint hardly seems to be unbiased, and none of this seems to be justifying his paranoia.
edited 12th Jul '16 8:20:00 PM by LSBK
I was never trying to justify the Iraq war. I'm trying to point out that the situation that allowed the Iraq War to happen aren't repeating themselves currently, so just assuming that Clinton's going to start another one is fallacious and kind of foolish. The war happened because of a specific set of things, which while still relevant are relevant in a very different way.
That's not actually a convincing argument at all. "More people" doesn't automatically equate to "no war" or wiser decisions. Also, the UN has very little in the way of authority to enforce its resolutions. It's not actually a government force, it's a diplomatic platform.
edited 12th Jul '16 8:26:26 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
EDIT- Not justifying the Iraq War either, for the record. Only that the situation at the time, in context, made that vote obvious.
As for the UN, the UN isn't giving much pressure in Syria either, and that crisis affects most of the world's nations via the refugee crisis. In matters where the UNSC doesn't see eye to eye on a situation, the UN dithers by design.
edited 12th Jul '16 8:28:36 PM by FFShinra
From this timeline
, it was a rare year indeed since 1945 where the US wasn't warring somewhere.
I have no doubts that Hillary will find you something to kill.
DAESH seems like the obvious target. There remains unfinished business in Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan. We also have genocide emergencies in Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Burundi
.
My memory of the popular pre-Iraq public opinion was that it was split along party lines, FWIW. I was in college in Massachusetts at the time and anti-war demonstrations were a passtime of several of my peers. Some of that was far-left but not all. Most of the rhetoric assumed that it was "blood for oil" which I can't say whether or not that panned out to be accurate. They were right in pointing out that the Taliban was not in Iraq (then) and did distrust the WMD evidence.
At the time, I wasn't cheering for war but neither did I protest it; I did (and still somewhat do) believe that whatever the reason, toppling Saddam and paving the way for Iraqui self-governance was a positive result. Now it turns out to be more of a mixed blessing ("won the war, lost the peace") but it was still not without benefit for the people of Iraq. The people who really should have the final word on whether it was worth it is them; we're arguing principles, they have to live with it. I would say the Kurds at least are happy, the people in the cities being fought over by Daesh less so.
edited 12th Jul '16 8:45:36 PM by Elle

In any case, voting to go to war without an imminent threat, is still not something to be proud off. Even if you believed the lies.
edited 12th Jul '16 7:48:13 PM by Antiteilchen