Mountain West Microbrew: Chit chat and irrelevancy

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

More like 1815 to 1875 (so about 60 years) that could be considered a clear-cut unipolar world. But the key point is that the destabilization that occurs due to the shift results in an increase in global conflict with the kind of large-scale wars that go down in the history books (Thirty Years,Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, etc.) We've had over a half-century of relative peace and the tragedy would be another large-scale war (Russia/US, US/China, Pakistan/India, Isreal/Saudi Arabia, Iran/Saudi Arabia, Germany vs the World, etc) where the casualty counts would hit the tens of millions.

I don't think that will happen. States need to be self sufficient just like American families. If they can't do it alone they need to form coalitions. America can't be the glue. We're not good at it. We don't know how to develop countries anymore and we don't know how to wield our power with sobriety.

I know that most Americans are insulated don't understand what warfare actually means beyond the sanitized version that's delivered via the media or what the jack off to while on LiveLeak, but I kind of prefer the world that's maintained via the current hegemony versus the one where we have Victory Bond drives, rationing, conscription, etc. Should it cost as much defense-wise as what we're currently spending? No. But that's more a domestic issue than one of foreign policy.

I don't fully understand what this means but I agree that it's nice not to be in dire times.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Quite a gamble, and it's based on nothing but wishful thinking.

I wouldn't say that's accurate. It is based on a long track record of stated policy positions from Trump. Which have been thrown to the wind for the campaign, true. But just like I am not quick to ignore or casually disregard Hillary's long track record of supporting good policies, in favor of the flavor of the moment and in the name of preferring ideological consistency, I also look at Trump's longer (albeit, not as dense as Hillary's) record.

I do not care what candidates say in political rallies - red meat intended to fire up the mindless drones and create a cult of personality (which appears, also from the responses on this Board, to be working for some candidates). To me, racist rhetoric from Trump at a rally in the South serves the same purpose as Free-Free-Free rhetoric from Bernie on a college campus. And both are blatantly anti-American and damaging if real. But I look at the long-term patterns. Hillary is obviously my favorite candidate - by far and away. But on long-term trends, I think Trump is the next most likely to be aligned with where I stand (assuming Kasich is toast). Bernie has been a consistent socialist crazy forever. Trump has only been crazy for the last year or so as far as I can tell.

[bunt_q]

Nm.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I know that most Americans are insulated don't understand what warfare actually means beyond the sanitized version that's delivered via the media or what the jack off to while on LiveLeak, but I kind of prefer the world that's maintained via the current hegemony versus the one where we have Victory Bond drives, rationing, conscription, etc. Should it cost as much defense-wise as what we're currently spending? No. But that's more a domestic issue than one of foreign policy.

Agree 100%.

"It's nice not to be in dire times" reeks of somebody who's been sheltered by hegemony and doesn't even realize it.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You sound like a poster philosophy major who's read too much Marx and Nietzsche. All theory, no real-world sense or perspective. You absolutely should support Bernie.

I'm glad you are glad we won WWII. Bravo for getting that one right.

No regard for allies, that's rich. Turkey is in NATO too, do they not count? Or is it their problem for living in a bad neighborhood?

So what would you have done in Syria? Or are you content with the status quo? I'm guessing you're not somebody who has ever been to the Middle East, or actually had to practice what you preach with respect to foreign policy. It's all so much easier from a SLC coffee shop.

I've been to Jordan, Israel, and the West Bank. I studied Modern Hebrew at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem for 2 months. We had a friend of a friend rent a car from some dude's house and drive us around the West Bank which was pretty sketchy, but it was fun.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have militaries that are larger than Russia combined. They both dislike Russia for propping up Shiite regimes. I think they can pool their resources together that are being used once in a while to shoot at Kurds and Yemenis. America should help the Kurds and tell Turkey to suck a dick. We don't really want Turkey as part of NATO with their propensity towards shooting down Russian planes. The only nice thing about Turkey is that they actually invest in their military and aren't total parasites.

I would have let Assad do his thing because less people would have died. I would have taken the same side as Russia and not try to destroy a state nor help rebels destroy a state. I would not have invaded Iraq the second time nor would I have scrapped the regime after killing Saddam. You know, the same generals and government that became ISIS.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Agree 100%.

"It's nice not to be in dire times" reeks of somebody who's been sheltered by hegemony and doesn't even realize it.

Just like your two posts reek of people who think they're on the same page as legitimate American heros who actually fought in total war. I don't remember you rising a flag over iwo jima. Thank you for your martyrdom.

And Bunt, since I reference actual events and history and can piece together an argument that isn't hyperbole, I'll just assume I'm a much better writer than you.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well weakness is a great platform to run on. He should go with that. I'm sure it'll resonate with Americans who don't have "Free Tibet" or "Coexist" tattooed on their right ass-cheek.

Yeah because "strong" foreign policy has proven to be a massive success in Iraq & Afghanistan

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But just like I am not quick to ignore or casually disregard Hillary's long track record of supporting good policies

WTF are you talking about?? She has no track record of supporting good policy..... she changes her opinion about everything constantly, based in what she thinks will help her poll numbers. She was for the Iraq war before she was against it, for gods sake. She was against arming Syrian rebels just a few years ago, and now she wants to arm Syrian rebels.

You are being intellectually dishonest

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It is based on a long track record of stated policy positions from Trump.

Intentionally riling up violence from your base in order to squash dissent IS a policy. And not remotely an acceptable one. He has a real history of that. It's not harmless, and we have absolutely zero reason to expect it will stop if he's elected.

[Cirrus]

Guys, if we can't have this discussion without attacking each other personally, I'll have to shut it down. /mod

[s.p.hansen]

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Scottk

She was for the Iraq war before she was against it, for gods sake. She was against arming Syrian rebels just a few years ago, and now she wants to arm Syrian rebels.

Most of America was for the Iraq War before they were against it.

The problem wasn't in the idea of the Iraq War, the problem was in the abysmally terrible execution of it. You, like many people who have no knowledge or experience on the subject, are learning completely the wrong lesson from our Iraq experience. Your answer is to disengage; mine would be to engage smarter. But then again, most of America was for the Vietnam War before they were against it. And we learned the same lessons coming out of that experience that you are learning from the modern one. You're making the same mistake your parents' generation made. It's actually sort of eery how little institutional knowledge survived the Vietnam experience (at least on the nation-building side; I can't speak for the military lessons, I assume those were better retained). Also how long it took us to re-learn those same lessons. And it's exactly because we Americans just want to forget, make it all go away, and go hide in a corner for a few decades until we reluctantly get drawn out again. Bernie is the "go hide in a corner and wish the bad men would all go away" candidate.

[s.p.hansen]

I hope the lesson that we learned is that regime change isn't the same as destroying a state. We seemed to forget the idea that we needed to keep our former enemies incharge of Japan when we handed it back to them.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I hope the lesson that we learned is that regime change isn't the same as destroying a state. We seemed to forget the idea that we needed to keep our former enemies incharge of Japan when we handed it back to them.

I'd say that's on the list, for sure. Ideologues shouldn't nation-build. That's work for pragmatists.

Going back to your comment on the Turks/Kurds, I thought that interesting. I have a personal affinity for both the Turks and Kurds, and I do not necessarily agree that having Turkey as a NATO ally and supporting the Kurds are mutually exclusive - they've developed a good working relationship with the Kurdish Regional Government, which just so happens to also be the only part of greater Kurdistan where Kurds have any degree of autonomy and self-determination. I can't fault the Turks for being opposed to Syrian-based PKK terrorists, or separatist elements within Turkey - we'd do exactly the same as what they do in their shoes. So I am not clear what you would actually propose the U.S. do - "support the Kurds" is too vague to translate into any meaningful policy. Do you mean support the Kurds in breaking up Iraq and forming an independent state? I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but I'd like to understand if that's your proposal. And if it is, what would your proposal be for areas outside of the KRG under Kurdish control (namely, Kirkuk), and would you also include Kurdish areas outside the boundaries of present-day Iraq in a modern day Kurdistan?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And if it is, what would your proposal be for areas outside of the KRG under Kurdish control (namely, Kirkuk), and would you also include Kurdish areas outside the boundaries of present-day Iraq in a modern day Kurdistan?

Well that's the sticky wicket and precisely why Turkey combats the PKK so ardently. Anykind of Kurdistan would see the PKK push strongly for secession from Turkey and into Kurdistan.

Which is why the US isn't keen on Kurdish independence in Iraq preferring an autonomous Kurdish region instead- it keeps the lid on a potential civil war in a NATO ally- especially one that might be joining the nuclear club in the next decade or so.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Most of America was for the Iraq War before they were against it.

Red herring.


You claimed Hitlery has a " Long track record of supporting good policy."

I do not consider supporting the Iraq war, then later opposing it to be "good policy." Same as I do not consider opposing same sex marriage, then later supporting it, to be good policy. Same as I do not consider supporting TPP, then later opposing it to be good policy. Or being against arming the Syrian Rebels, before supporting the arming of Syrian rebels.

If anything, Hitlery has a "long track record" of flip flops & inconsistencies.

[Scottk]

Fuck Turkey, no way they should be in NATO.

They buy oil from ISIS and threaten to flood Europe with even more refugees.

Nevermind their propensity for shooting down Russian planes. Do we really want WW3 with Russia?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Well that's the sticky wicket and precisely why Turkey combats the PKK so ardently. Anykind of Kurdistan would see the PKK push strongly for secession from Turkey and into Kurdistan.

Which is why the US isn't keen on Kurdish independence in Iraq preferring an autonomous Kurdish region instead- it keeps the lid on a potential civil war in a NATO ally- especially one that might be joining the nuclear club in the next decade or so.

I think Kurdish secession in southeastern Turkey is about as likely as a Palestinian state. If the honest message to the Palestinian people is, "Want a state? Move to Amman." then I suppose the message to Turkish Kurds would be "move to Erbil."

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Scottk

.Nevermind their propensity for shooting down Russian planes. Do we really want WW3 with Russia?

We do need a culling of the Millenial generation.....

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

We do need a culling of the Millenial generation.....

The free schooling we'd get might make it worth it.