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

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#129926: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:59:14 PM

IIRC, Saddam had used chemical weapons (WM Ds) before, which would mean that it actually wouldn't be that implausible that he would have WM Ds around the time of the Iraq war.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:59:20 PM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#129927: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:11:46 PM

[up][up]Those who wish to do nothing also have blood on their hands by inaction. In politics, there is no bloodless rule.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#129928: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:19:15 PM

If I recall correctly, the belief at the time was that the U.N. had given Iraq too much advanced notice about where and when it would be conducting inspections, allowing Saddam to play a shell game, moving WM Ds out of where the U.N. was about to search, then moving them back once the inspectors had moved on.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#129929: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:19:40 PM

[up][up] "If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them."- The Dalai Lama, seemingly paraphrasing Hippocrates.

edited 12th Jul '16 9:20:06 PM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#129930: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:36:52 PM

The Dalai Lama, however amazingly super pure holy he may be, is not infallible, and does not run a country that has taken on, whether it likes it or not, a degree of global military hegemony. There are bad people in the world, and people who aren't inherently bad but have found justification to fight one another, and someone has to step in from time to time to stop them from making life miserable for everybody else. If you don't want that to be the United States, well, okay, who else is going to do it? Step up to the plate and bring your resumes. We'd love to hand over some of the responsibility

The U.N.? Awesome. Let's support it by giving it political sovereignty and a standing army. Wait, that's too global for ya? Crap, well, I guess we're stuck with the status quo.

edited 12th Jul '16 9:38:58 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#129931: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:43:31 PM

[up] India could. They have the second largest military in the world.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#129932: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:45:08 PM

India can barely supply and feed it's armies and have to rely entirely on Russian surplus weaponry and Russian contractors and mechanics to keep their war machines running.

edited 12th Jul '16 9:45:22 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#129933: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:48:41 PM

[up]I didn't even know India had war machines. What would they even need them for nowadays anyway? (So I sayeth in my eternal ignorance.tongue)

edited 12th Jul '16 9:49:05 PM by kkhohoho

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#129934: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:49:43 PM

Nuclear war with Pakistan. The two have been on the brink for decades.

Oh really when?
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#129935: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:52:00 PM

I still don't know how that hasn't popped off.

New Survey coming this weekend!
Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#129936: Jul 12th 2016 at 9:53:48 PM

The US, Russia and China saying hell no.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#129937: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:05:02 PM

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.

Oh no. They might intervene and stop a genocide. The horror, the horror. The good news (if you want to view it that way) is you probably don't have anything to worry about on that front, since the USA almost never intervenes in genocides.

Something I'll note here, Handle—based on this comment I could easily decide that you are pro-genocide (I know you're not, obviously). It would be about as reasonable as your assumption, based on again, literally nothing, that Clinton is going to start looking for a war.

edited 12th Jul '16 10:22:31 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#129938: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:11:27 PM

@Garcon - India is a net exporter of food. It's achilles heel is cumbersomeness.

@Fighteer - [awesome]

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#129939: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:22:10 PM

The funny thing is, Bush and Cheney didn't need to go Wag The Dog like they did. They had a perfectly legit reason to overthrow Saddam Hussein without any mention of WMDs, namely that Saddam Hussein was Saddam fucking Hussein and was himself guilty of genocide and war crimes. But instead, they used a Big Lie in place of a reason and a plan, and in so doing, discredited military intervention in the cause of toppling genocidal dictators.

Sad.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#129940: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:23:09 PM

[up]Saddam wasn't actually committing genocide at the time, and other dictators were, so it might have been rather iffy as an excuse.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#129941: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:27:18 PM

I'm fine with the US stopping genocides, if that was what they actually did. Instead they either stand by while they happen, or make things worse through gross negligence and carelessness.

If the USA had a general policy of stopping genocides, and sticking around for cleanup, in a way that is optimised to benefit the locals rather than their own contractors, that would be great. If they did that often enough, well enough, the goodwill and moral authority gained would be inestimable.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#129942: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:30:55 PM

And yet the idea of Clinton intervening in a genocide apparently fills you with dread on the basis of...what? Even if you want to hold her Iraq War vote against her, she's not the one who screwed up the actual running of the war, seeing as she had exactly zero control over that.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#129943: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:45:02 PM

USA...policy

A large part of the problem is that these two words do not really fit in the same sentence. We don't have a coherent foreign policy, in large part because Americans as a country don't agree on what our role in the world should be, and haven't agreed on it since the Iraq War.

I can predict that Hillary will, like Barack in large part (except probably more competently - I wouldn't classify foreign and military policy as one of Obama's strong suits), attempt to return the US' direction to where it had been in The '90s under Bill - the US as world policeman, without a single defined policy but making use of soft and hard power towards strengthening (in no particular order) world peace, general prosperity, and the American economy.

edited 12th Jul '16 10:52:26 PM by Ramidel

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#129944: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:45:37 PM

IIRC, one of the motivations was that it was believed Iraq was generally stirring up trouble in the middle east (arming anti-US terrorists and whatnot) and that, if it was turned into a democracy, the middle east would become more peaceful in the long run.

The use of military force to destroy dictatorships and replace them with less-cruel regimes is a good idea in theory. Way I see it, if a regime doesn't respect the rights of its own citizens, then there's no reason for other states to respect its sovereignty. In theory, one (ethically) can declare war on an oppressive regime for basically any reason, so long as they replace the people in charge with something less oppressive. Having said that, in practice there's a lot of other factors to consider other than the nature of the enemy regime. While conquering North Korea wouldn't itself be immoral, it would cause all sorts of other problems that make the ends not justify the means.

In the case of the Iraq war, I'm of the opinion that we should have either not done it, or thrown more time and resources into it. We kind of went in half-way without a great plan and didn't really help much-in some ways making the situation even worse.

edited 12th Jul '16 10:45:57 PM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#129945: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:47:26 PM

Is the Middle East prepared for democracy though.

Non Indicative Username
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#129946: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:48:26 PM

Not always helping is a shitty reason to never help.

I don't always give my seat up for elderly people on the tube, if I tried to use that as an excuse to never give my seat up I'd rightly be called a dick.

There was nothing to know. Invading a country that isn't waging a war (against others or it's own populace) is wrong.

Saddam was waging a war against both the US and his own people, or so Clinton and everyone else were lead to belive by the 'experts' in the intelligence community.

People today still don't get that Saddam had no connection to Islamic Extremism and 9/11, at the time it as far from clear for some people.

And Saddam was a dick who gassed his own people, his secret police along could have been argued to have been effectively waging a war on his own people. Thing is he wasn't actively committing crimes against humanity and nobody actually spoke to the Iraqi people at the time.

[up] Yes. The people there want it and they're entitled to it. They're not savages who can't understand our delicate western ways.

edited 12th Jul '16 10:50:14 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#129947: Jul 12th 2016 at 10:58:09 PM

Controversial GM Food Labeling Bill Approved By US Senate

Herpty derpty doo if it isn't all natural it isn't good for you

[up][up]Democracy? Yes. A secular state? Not so much, but you can argue if you can lead a successful democratic state without a secular state.

edited 12th Jul '16 10:59:58 PM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#129948: Jul 12th 2016 at 11:05:24 PM

The US actually allowed a lot of Saddam's post gulf war 1 antics.

They put no fly zones in the north and south of Iraq but flat out allowed helicopters to fly, which he consistently used to bombard the kurds on a regular basis to keep them from rebelling.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#129949: Jul 12th 2016 at 11:16:31 PM

[up]The alternative would have been the Iraq War ten years early.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#129950: Jul 12th 2016 at 11:18:50 PM

[up][up]The earliest arguments for separation of church and state (Edmund Burke, et. al.) were put forth in large part because people were realizing just how religious (civil) wars sucked. It may be theoretically possible to have a religious democracy but historically it's not been good for stability, especially when democracy comes to a head against doctrine.

Case in point, the GOP draft platform...


Total posts: 417,856
Top