The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Snappo]

When US interests are considered to be at stake, "intervention" is code speak for "running interception" - not necessarily a game (war) meant to win for and with our allies, just a foil against the enemy warring against our interests, sent to operate on a shoestring budget no less. A real war wouldn't/shouldn't be waged and fought on a half-assed dime. That's why we never win and our soldiers die for lack of real support. I tend to disbelieve that our involvements are squarely based in selfless altruism.

 

[grokit]

Just another illegal invasion & occupation, "war" is such an unpleasant term in comparison!
At least according to kissinger's neocon/lib school for war criminals

 

[Silat]

So intervention is bombing miliary targets, deploying special forces, using artillery, etc. but it's not war? What constitutes war then?

Does there have to be an official declaration of war? If so, you'd have to agree that Korea and Vietnam were not wars, but "interventions".

Kissinger and McNamara and the likes used to say that Vietnam was an "intervention" to stop South Vietnam from falling to the communists. Intervention is just a euphemism for war.

At least McNamara had the sense to come around and oppose the Iraq war when it came around, and to regret some of his involvement in the war in Vietnam....

Did you even read what she voted for?
Tell me how you would have handled Libya when our allies asked for help?

 

[Silat]

So intervention is bombing miliary targets, deploying special forces, using artillery, etc. but it's not war? What constitutes war then?

Does there have to be an official declaration of war? If so, you'd have to agree that Korea and Vietnam were not wars, but "interventions".

Kissinger and McNamara and the likes used to say that Vietnam was an "intervention" to stop South Vietnam from falling to the communists. Intervention is just a euphemism for war.

At least McNamara had the sense to come around and oppose the Iraq war when it came around, and to regret some of his involvement in the war in Vietnam....

Well I was drafted and Nam most certainly became a war.
Libya. Nope.
But back to the actual issue I responded to.
Her vote for presidential authority was not a vote for war. That is just a fact.

 

[Farid]

Did you even read what she voted for?
Tell me how you would have handled Libya when our allies asked for help?

I would have brought Ghadaffi and rebels to the table and forced a cease fire. Since the rebels were relying on NATO support we could have convinced them to negotiate. Instead we ignored the Libyan Governments and the African Union's ceasefire offers and empowered rebels with no ability to govern a state.

 

[Silat]

I would have brought Ghadaffi and rebels to the table and forced a cease fire. Since the rebels were relying on NATO support we could have convinced them to negotiate. Instead we ignored the Libyan Governments and the African Union's ceasefire offers and empowered rebels with no ability to govern a state.

They tried that for years.

 

[cybrguy]

Okay, let's compare what the usa and its allies like saudi arabia and isreal are doing with attack aircraft.

Exactly the same thing. Thank you for helping my argument. The point is that drones are much less destructive and many times less likely to create collateral damage. Using airplanes and ground troops leads to many more civilian deaths. Isn't that what you are after?

 

[Farid]

They tried that for years.

That's not really true. The Libya Civil war happened extremely quickly. Protests against Ghadaffi and the formation of the National Transitional Council (the group opposed to Ghadaffi) didn't happen until 2011. Before that we had normalized relations during the Early Bush years. There was no ongoing insurgency or any major armed opposition until 2011.

From the wikipedia page on US Libya relations:

The United States' first direct contact with the anti-Gaddafi opposition came on March 14, 2011 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with National Transitional Council leader Mahmoud Jibril in Paris.

 

[Silat]

That's not really true. The Libya Civil war happened extremely quickly. Protests against Ghadaffi and the formation of the National Transitional Council (the group opposed to Ghadaffi) didn't happen until 2011. Before that we had normalized relations during the Early Bush years. There was no ongoing insurgency or any major armed opposition until 2011.

From the wikipedia page on US Libya relations:

Umm we were fighting Ghadaffi under Reagan. We have been fighting or talking to him for decades.

 

[Snappo]

With Trump in office there will be no talking... only sabre rattling and missiles flying... China, Russia, North Korea, Middle East, USA... it's on... all the gangs and bullies come to the fight... Apocalypse Now...

 

[cybrguy]

"What do you MEAN I can't build a golf course in downtown Bejing!!! Who do you think you are talking to, that pussy Obama? Hey, you know that building you bought in New York? It's property tax just doubled..."

It's not all about shit that explodes...

 

[Farid]

Umm we were fighting Ghadaffi under Reagan. We have been fighting or talking to him for decades.

Ok, but the reasons given for intervening in 2011 were completely different from the reasons Reagan bombed Libya in '86. In 2011 we intervened in response to anti government protests. In '86 we bombed Libya to appease Israel and because of the fact that Libyan forces were occupying Chad. Completely different contexts. Much like how we invaded Iraq in 91 because of Saddam invading Kuwait, but in 2003 it was because Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction".

If you take the government's word for it, the conflicts are unrelated.

 

[Silat]

Ok, but the reasons given for intervening in 2011 were completely different from the reasons Reagan bombed Libya in '86. In 2011 we intervened in response to anti government protests. In '86 we bombed Libya to appease Israel and because of the fact that Libyan forces were occupying Chad. Completely different contexts. Much like how we invaded Iraq in 91 because of Saddam invading Kuwait, but in 2003 it was because Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction".

If you take the government's word for it, the conflicts are unrelated.

Well now you are talking something different.
I was dealing with your assertion that we had not been talking for very long.
It has been decades as I said.
The talking and fighting has been non-stop since Reagan.
The last time the Euro's had enough of terrorist activities and asked us to help them.

 

[Farid]

I should have been more specific then. We never tried sitting down and acting as moderators between Ghadaffi and the National Transitional Council. Instead we supported a coup. We negotiated with Ghadaffi in the context of Libya's foreign policy, his actions in Chad, and his support of militants in other countires, but we never sat down with Ghadaffi in the context of Libya's future. That's what we should have done differently.

The talking and fighting has not been nonstop since Reagan. Bush normalized relations from 2003 until around 2006. During that period the Bush administration was involved with a rendition program to torture detainees in Libyan prisons:
Source: https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/05/us-torture-and-rendition-gaddafis-libya

And for what it's worth, the National Transition Council ended up dissolving and reforming into various Islamist parties.

Just like Saddam. We negotiated with him when it came to Kuwait in '91, but when the false allegations of WMDs went out we had no plans to negotiate. Saddam let weapons inspectors in who found nothing and we still went and invaded.

 

[Silat]

I should have been more specific then. We never tried sitting down and acting as moderators between Ghadaffi and the National Transitional Council. Instead we supported a coup. We negotiated with Ghadaffi in the context of Libya's foreign policy, his actions in Chad, and his support of militants in other countires, but we never sat down with Ghadaffi in the context of Libya's future. That's what we should have done differently.

The talking and fighting has not been nonstop since Reagan. Bush normalized relations from 2003 until around 2006. During that period the Bush administration was involved with a rendition program to torture detainees in Libyan prisons:
Source: https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/05/us-torture-and-rendition-gaddafis-libya

And for what it's worth, the National Transition Council ended up dissolving and reforming into various Islamist parties.

Just like Saddam. We negotiated with him when it came to Kuwait in '91, but when the false allegations of WMDs went out we had no plans to negotiate. Saddam let weapons inspectors in who found nothing and we still went and invaded.

We disagree. And Iraq was a whole different issue. It was not a threat. In fact Sadddam kept Iran bankrupt and in a constant state of war. Ghad was not the same issue in any way.
Now back to vaping Have a good one.

 

[Krazy]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil

To quote the old rock band Rush, "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"

 

[Adobewan]

To quote the old rock band Rush, "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"

Ouch! Rush is old?
Need to go chase the neighborhood kids off my lawn.

 

[cybrguy]

And now, a little comic relief...

 

[grokit]

With Trump in office there will be no talking... only sabre rattling and missiles flying... China, Russia, North Korea, Middle East, USA... it's on... all the gangs and bullies come to the fight... Apocalypse Now...

Don't forget about the race/gender wars at home

 

[yogoshio]

Don't forget about the race/gender wars at home

This was already happening under Obama. This is something that will continue happen as long as "multi-cutlutralism" continues to be used a political tool as opposed to cultural stimulus.

 

[His_Highness]

With Trump's racist base feeling emboldened at his election I'm not so sure things won't escalate. I for one don't want to be in a situation like that waiting for Trump to take definitive action to stop it or to even denounce it in a strong way.

Of course...I'm basing this on the limited history of his running in the primary. I never watched The Apprentice.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

Jeff Probst 2020!!

 

[cybrguy]

This was already happening under Obama. This is something that will continue happen as long as "multi-cutlutralism" continues to be used a political tool as opposed to cultural stimulus.

Yeah. Because Obama is out there saying that Mexicans are rapists, killers and drug dealers, and Muslims are all terrorists and shouldn't be allowed in the country.

Get a grip, man. This is a bigot running for President. This is a WHOLE different thing. I am not a fan of Romney, but he is ABSOLUTELY right when he says Trump would be trickle down racism, trickle down misogyny and trickle down bigotry. There is NO comparing this to what is coming now from the White House...

 

[CarolKing]

Republicans will be all over this tragedy and loss of life of 50 Floridian people by homegrown terrorism. This guy was born in the U.S. They will of course blame Obama and Hillary Clinton for it. Use this tragedy to further their candidates chances.

 

[yogoshio]

The only difference between Trump and Clinton in regards to race is one doesn't have a filter and isn't trying to buy (and I use that in a 'benevolent' tone) votes.

If anyone thinks Clinton, Reid, or hell even Rev. Sharpton isn't just as bigoted, you're kidding yourself. We are still talking about the same governmental system that continued to keep pro-Jim Crow Dems and Repubs until they retired or died in office.

Republicans will be all over this tragedy

That's an interesting point, but I find it to be all too convenient for any tragedy to be used on any side. How many times has it been a white guy, and the immediate media/dem response is "crazy tea party?"