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

940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139076: Sep 19th 2016 at 10:46:49 AM

[up] That's annoyed me for years. There's so much fearmongering about Iran, but Saudi Arabia is at the heart of the problem. People just ignore it. Pakistans a bigger problem than Iran too and they have nuclear weapons. That's not to say that the Iranians don't sponsor terrorism. They do. But a lot of countries do including Israel, the United States and many of our allies. A journalist from the New York Times referred to Saudi Arabia as an ISIS that made it. Bin Ladin released his grievances with America in the 90's.

1) That America was propping up Muslim dictators.

2) That America had bases on their land.

3) That they were opressing the Palestinians.

I honestly believe that if these problems were adressed people in the Muslim world would be less willing to attack us.

edited 19th Sep '16 10:57:35 AM by 940131

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#139077: Sep 19th 2016 at 10:49:48 AM

[up][up] No: Pakistan has got Nukes.

Keep Rolling On
LogoP Party Crasher from the Land of Deep Blue Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Party Crasher
#139078: Sep 19th 2016 at 10:58:36 AM

RE: Pakistan

You know, even people who acknowledge the true extent of the mess that was the Iraq invasion, still claim that the War in Afghanistan is defensible due to the fact that the Taliban were a bunch of inhuman theocratic dictators who sponsored terrorism and provided sanctuary to the perpetrators of 9/11. I can understand that logic and the support it gets.

However, at the same time, Pakistan has been acting as an ever bigger backer to those very terror groups the West is fighting against, is only marginally less ghastly than Taliban Afghanistan used to be in terms of repression and even hosted Osama fucking Bin Laden for the last years of his life.

So, using the same logic, why hasn't that country suffered repercussions as well, yet?

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
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
#139079: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:02:37 AM

Because Pakistan actually has got WM Ds.

Seriously, support for Pakistan basically boils down to nobody wanting the Pakistani nukes to go walkabout.

edited 19th Sep '16 11:02:55 AM 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
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#139080: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:03:12 AM

[up][up] Because they have nukes. Also we need them to resupply our forces in Afghanistan. That and they have worked with us sometimes, they gave us Kallied Shiekh Mohamed, and have launched offensives in the Tribal areas. The true extent of Pakistan's backing for Islamists has only become apparent during the Obama administration, and relations have suffered since.

edited 19th Sep '16 11:04:14 AM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
LogoP Party Crasher from the Land of Deep Blue Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Party Crasher
#139081: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:16:07 AM

India also has nukes. It can, too, supply Allied troops in Afghanistan through Kashmir, has a much larger economic clout than Pakistan, has a developed civil society and is actually a democracy (if a corrupt and disfucntional one).

It'd not only be a much better trade partner and anti-terrorism ally than Pakistan is, but it'd also make a very good regional ally against Chinese influence. And yet, for some reason, the way it's been treated the past few decades ranges from cold to outright hostile.

edited 19th Sep '16 11:16:30 AM by LogoP

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#139082: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:17:36 AM

[up][up] And according to our page called The Moscow Criterion, the criteria for Pakistan's use of Nuclear Weapons are completely unknownnote .

edited 19th Sep '16 11:17:48 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#139083: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:24:40 AM

[up][up]I wouldn't say India's been treated coldly except when it comes to public backlash against outsourcing.

On the other hand though, the even more dicey issue with India and Pakistan is keeping them from launching nukes at each other. Presumably this is easier to do with Pakistan willing to talk with the West than otherwise.

Also, Pakistan is a parliamentary republic, more or less the same way India is.

edited 19th Sep '16 11:26:44 AM by Elle

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#139084: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:25:38 AM

No: Pakistan has got Nukes.
That's why we're never going to attack them, but that by itself isn't a reason to make nice with them. I mean, Russia and China have nukes too, but we aren't exactly friendly with their governments to nearly the same degree we are with Pakistan.

Pakistan is also somewhat schizophrenic. Various factions within their government (and outside it, as well) are various levels of hostile to us, friendly with us, and don't particularly like us but are willing to work with us. This is why Osama bin Laden was able to live there for so long — one group was hiding him, until another group told us about him (or at least unofficially approved the strike against him — we'll probably never know exactly how much of an inside job that whole intelligence operation was).

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139085: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:26:06 AM

[up] Aren't there nukes a deterrent to India? Isn't it about mutually assured destruction?

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#139086: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:28:37 AM

Because they have nukes.

And people wonder why everyone wants those. There's hardly a bigger "FUCK OFF" sign available. It is arguably because of nukes that Pakistan and India are merely at each other's throats rather than actively indulging in regional conflict.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
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
#139087: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:31:46 AM

Russia and China aren't at risk of collapsing and having their nukes go walkabout if the US pulls support, not even North Korea is as unstable.

It's not just that they have nukes, they have nukes and are unstable enough that if not supported said nukes could end up in the hands of people willing to use them against the US.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#139088: Sep 19th 2016 at 11:44:37 AM

[up] Not just the US — anyone.

Keep Rolling On
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#139090: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:17:56 PM

Agreed with those saying why we support Pakistan. However, there is a good point that the way we are supporting them does not help in the long term, since it perpetuates the very instability that makes us fear the walkabout scenario.

Speaking of them and India, 17 Indian soldiers recently died on the Line of Control due to infiltration from Pakistan. Lot of debate over there about retaliation, so the situation between those two isn't exactly peachy at the moment.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#139091: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:27:33 PM

It's pretty cold as far as wars go, especially with them sharing a border.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139092: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:31:50 PM

I'm not an expert on the region, but I'm pretty sure they've gone to war on more than one occasion. Now India's elected a right wing nationalist (like many countries in the past decade).

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#139093: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:36:05 PM

It might have been a good idea, when we were thinking of invading Iraq, to think about invading Pakistan instead out of pure desire to take the nukes out of their hands.

I mean, "unstable nuclear power" is the definition of an existential threat to humankind. If we can't fight a war against that, who can we fight a war against? (Oh, right: someone with oil.)

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#139094: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:37:42 PM

What false accusations.

Most recently? Do I talk about how Trump blamed Clinton for the Birther movement, the infamous Clinton email server, the whole thing about something being medically wrong with Clinton before we actually knew she had pnuemonia, or do I just say Benghazi? Feel free to take your pick of Clinton controversies that the Republicans have been trying to stick to the Clintons since Bill was President!

edited 19th Sep '16 12:38:28 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#139095: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:45:22 PM

Since before then. The Republicans were furious that a Democrat managed to get the governorship of Arkansas, a very red state.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#139096: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:45:42 PM

[up][up][up]The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that it makes you basically immune to invasion, because if someone tries to invade you, you nuke them.

edited 19th Sep '16 12:46:01 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#139097: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:47:24 PM

Granted, in 2003, Pakistan's missile tech wasn't quite as good as it is now. Even now, it's not like they have ICB Ms like India and China do.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#139098: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:50:05 PM

[up][up]Yeah, but does Pakistan have the reach to do anything to America?

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#139099: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:55:29 PM

[up]Don't know but they could definitely nuke American bases in nearby countries. Heck they could definitely nuke nearby countries for the crime of being allied with the USA. Nobody wants Kabul getting incinerated.

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
#139100: Sep 19th 2016 at 12:57:55 PM

[up][up]Yes in the sense that in the time it takes American forces to secure the area AQ or the Taliban will have probably made off with at least one nuke and start trying to ship it to the US on a container ship.

Pakistani missiles might not reach but terrorist groups with a Pakistani nuke might be able to walk the nuke. Plus Pakistani missiles could almost certain reach US bases in Afghanistan and probably the Gulf.

edited 19th Sep '16 12:58:17 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

Total posts: 417,856
Top