Social A serious question for liberals in this forum

[Jack V Savage]

I think there are bad motives when it comes to the neocons specifically. Their belief in noble lies and such (predecessor to the Trump era alternative facts, in some ways they're just as postmodern despite their protestations). They sell these presidents on going in under false pretenses and/or convince them that a favorable endgame is going to come and come quick, when in all actuality it rarely comes to fruition and becomes a quagmire and there are vast unintended consequences (on the president's end at least). It's happened too many times for me to think it's just a coincidence. I see a clear pattern in foreign policy.

I think Obama had good intentions, but he was stretched too thin, foreign policy wasn't really his strong suit and he was preoccupied with his domestic agenda, where the Republicans were obstructing him at every turn. I'll credit him for getting Obamacare done, even if it was a half measure, because I think a lot of people in his position wouldn't have even been able to get that done. I highly doubt Biden could have got it done. I see Biden making marginal improvements on Obamacare at best. But of course that is much preferred to Trump or another Republican continuing to dismantle it and replace it with nothing.

hiya Jack again!

i get that if one applies the Noam Chomsky measuring stick to the conduct of our Presidents, they'd all be in a jail cell under the Hague - but all in all i thought Mr. Obama did pretty good when it came to foreign policy.

Obama was reluctant to get engaged in a third endless military adventure; he was trying to disengage himself and the country from the two he inherited.

the lack of planning regarding the aftermath was by design; it wasn't Obama's show; it was being run by the French and the British, who were going to ultimately go in with or without the United States.

Obama wanted a strictly defined role for the US, with absolutely no new commitments to nation building projects (he was tiring of Iraq as it was), and that's what he did - while honoring geopolitical commitments that the US has shared with the UK and France for more than a century.

remember all the flak President Obama was getting for "leading from behind", when it came to Libya?

that wasn't an accident, and the people who criticized Obama for doing so would have been grousing no matter what he did.

a) sit on the sidelines while Cameron and Sarkozy intervene in Libya? "Obama is abandoning the Arab Spring!"

b) lead the intervention? "Obama is just another neocon!"

c) play a support role in the intervention? "Obama is leading from behind!"

in terms of how to proceed, it was a difficult needle to thread and i think Mr. Obama split the difference.

pragmatic. cautious.

i'm good with it.

- IGIT

I suspect that Obama went in thinking somewhat like people on the internet--that success in foreign policy is merely a matter of choosing not to do anything. Obviously more sophisticated than that, but along those lines. Then he learned better.

 

[IGIT]

I suspect that Obama went in thinking somewhat like people on the internet--that success in foreign policy is merely a matter of choosing not to do anything. Obviously more sophisticated than that, but along those lines. Then he learned better.

hi and good afternoon, Jack,

i agree, 100%.

there is a huge portion of the forum that believes that a good foreign policy is no foreign policy. its strange, lol - some of these same folks seem to have a serious yearning to go to war with China; that's the extent of their interest in the US engaging the rest of the planet.

i know i'm in the (extreme) minority, but i thought Mr. Obama (along with Clinton and Sullivan) did a pretty good job on foreign policy.

- IGIT

 

[Brampton_Boy]

Could you ever imagine a conservative running for president that you wouldn't absolutely despise? Not that you'd ever vote for him, but if he were polite and well-spoken, and simultaneously embodied conservative values, would it be possible that you didn't completely hate his guts?

This is a totally serious question.

The tone you have taken right off the bat is confrontational, particularly the part about "Not that you would ever vote for him". You inherently assume that liberals are incapable of considering any political candidate that don't brand themselves as a democrat. With that being said, I'll play along.

Outside of Trump, I can't think of any politician I have absolutely despised.

I think modern politics has become incredibly tribal, with conservatives branding democrats as being socialist antifa, and democrats branding conservatives as being racist klansmen. Any rational person (which unfortunately, is not nearly as many people as you would think) would recognize that someone's party affiliation doesn't inherently make them good/bad, or carry any sort of value judgement beyond what their political leanings might be. There is no room left for a moderate candidate in today's political atmosphere (at least on the right, because you can make a pretty good case for Biden being a moderate democrat)

I've felt that Paul Ryan would have made a decent choice for Republican Candidate, and I downright liked John Mccain and Mitt Romney as people.

People don't like Trump (or his ragtag band of wannabes) because he is a notorious liar and thief, disconnected from reality and has the thinnest skin for someone who is a bully himself. He could have been a democrat and championing universal health care, guaranteed livable wages and police reform, and I would still think he is a vacuous piece of shit who couldn't be trusted. My dislike for him has nothing to do with him being a conservative.

 

[IGIT]

Right it is very far fetched to assume the US would dethrone a dictator and destabilize a country because of economic interest nothing like that ever happened before.

hiya Gorilla,

this is silly, my friend.

the intervention in Libya was largely propelled by Mr. Cameron (with an assist from Grove) and Mr. Sarkozy , via NATO.

the goal in Libya wasn't nation building, GreenGorilla. NATO had no plans to build a democratic paradise in the Middle East - that kind of hubris is reserved for Donald Rumsfeld. the goal was to prevent a massacre.

that's not an unreasonable assumption, not when Gaddafi has threatened to "cleanse" Libya of these rebels, “inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alleyway by alleyway.”

by all accounts, they succeeded. in Syria, where NATO has essentially sat on his hands and done nothing, the death count is ten times what you saw in the aftermath of Gaddafi's execution.

11.5% of Syria's total population is either dead of maimed, lol. that's what happens when the nations of the world basically chill out and watch a slaughter.

the Americans joined the effort in Libya only with great reluctance, with an understanding that there would be no mission creep and the US would "lead from behind" - playing more of a support role.

the US had no financial dog in the fight.

Mr. Obama had no malevolent hidden "secret interest" in seeing Gaddafi fall, despite whatever you're hinting at.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

As long as conservatives stand for fucking over the common man in favor for the wealthiest people in the US, then no not really.

hi AndroidRage,

that's really the problem. the personality of someone like Trump, of course, was grating...but that wasn't the issue.

a GOP candidate for POTUS will have 3 qualities;

1) they will want to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

2) they will be soft - very soft - on climate change.

3) they will have no applicable ideas on healthcare. none. zero.

*ponders*

even if they were the nicest people on the planet - even nicer than Mr. Rogers - how can i vote for someone like that?

- IGIT

 

[cooks1]

Could you ever imagine a conservative running for president that you wouldn't absolutely despise? Not that you'd ever vote for him, but if he were polite and well-spoken, and simultaneously embodied conservative values, would it be possible that you didn't completely hate his guts?

This is a totally serious question.

Absolutely.

Would not have been terribly bent out of shape if either McCain or Romney had been President. Kasich would have been fine. Even Jeb Bush would have been OK. He did fine as Governor of Florida. In fact, I might have voted for some of those people if they had run against Clinton in 2016.

Competent people that are not idealogues. That's my wheelhouse.

 

[IGIT]

Absolutely.

Would not have been terribly bent out of shape if either McCain or Romney had been President. Kasich would have been fine. Even Jeb Bush would have been OK. He did fine as Governor of Florida. In fact, I might have voted for some of those people id they had run against Clinton in 2016.

Competent people that are not idealogues. That's my wheelhouse.

hi cooks1,

i remember listening to Jon Huntsman during his run in the primary years and years ago.

he seemed like a good guy. i remember thinking, "he can be President. its alright with me".

there must be something about Utah that makes Republicans seem like rational human beings.

- IGIT

 

[GreenGorilla]

hiya Gorilla,

this is silly, my friend.

the intervention in Libya was largely propelled by Mr. Cameron (with an assist from Grove) and Mr. Sarkozy , via NATO.

the goal in Libya wasn't nation building, GreenGorilla. NATO had no plans to build a democratic paradise in the Middle East - that kind of hubris is reserved for Donald Rumsfeld. the goal was to prevent a massacre.

that's not an unreasonable assumption, not when Gaddafi has threatened to "cleanse" Libya of these rebels, “inch by inch, house by house, home by home, alleyway by alleyway.”

by all accounts, they succeeded. in Syria, where NATO has essentially sat on his hands and done nothing, the death count is ten times what you saw in the aftermath of Gaddafi's execution.

11.5% of Syria's total population is either dead of maimed, lol. that's what happens when the nations of the world basically chill out and watch a slaughter.

the Americans joined the effort in Libya only with great reluctance, with an understanding that there would be no mission creep and the US would "lead from behind" - playing more of a support role.

the US had no financial dog in the fight.

Mr. Obama had no malevolent hidden "secret interest" in seeing Gaddafi fall, despite whatever you're hinting at.

- IGIT

You believe whatever you want my friend, but intervention has never suceeded and the situation now is far worse than it was under gaddafi. Quite frankly the rest of the world is getting tired of the USA and NATO playing world police and thinking they get to decide how things go. I am not hinting at things I have described what I mean quite clearly in previous posts, not a single syrian I have talked to is in support of USA going to syria. Also in Syria it is very clear there was economic interest, otherwise the USA would intervene in north syria already against the erdogan and his military but they don't cause they got good deals in place for the oil there. Sad thing my father went there regularly for work 20 years ago was a beautiful place, Mr.Obama is a representative he doesn't hold as much power as you think the people behind the scenes do.

 

[Makani]

I liked Mitt Romney well enough, even though he was definitely a rich asshole. John McCain wasn't the worst outside his foreign policy. Basically as long as you don't keep whining about gays or boot licking corporations I'll find you tolerable.

 

[IGIT]

You believe whatever you want my friend, but intervention has never suceeded and the situation now is far worse than it was under gaddafi.

hi again GG,

the situation today in Libya is better than it was in 2011. its not a ton better. just a bit better.

The Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) and rival forces led by renegade military commander Khalifa Haftar agreed to withdraw from the front lines, start demobilising armed groups and set about integrating them into the state.


Crucially, the deal also calls for the departure of all foreign forces from Libyan soil within three months.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/24/libyans-voice-hope-and-doubts-over-ceasefire-deal

the US had no financial incentive to intervene in Libya. there is no "follow the money" here. it was strictly a humanitarian mission to try and limit the slaughter.

*ponders*

so i dunno. like i said, you can see what happens when NATO or the UN does nothing, because that's basically what we did in Syria. the death count in Syria is 10x what we've seen in Libya.

- IGIT

 

[GreenGorilla]

hi again GG,

the situation today in Libya is better than it was in 2011. its not a ton better. just a bit better.

The Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) and rival forces led by renegade military commander Khalifa Haftar agreed to withdraw from the front lines, start demobilising armed groups and set about integrating them into the state.


Crucially, the deal also calls for the departure of all foreign forces from Libyan soil within three months.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/24/libyans-voice-hope-and-doubts-over-ceasefire-deal

the US had no financial incentive to intervene in Libya. there is no "follow the money" here. it was strictly a humanitarian mission to try and limit the slaughter.

*ponders*

so i dunno. like i said, you can see what happens when NATO or the UN does nothing, because that's basically what we did in Syria. the death count in Syria is 10x what we've seen in Libya.

- IGIT

So you gonna ignore the reawakening of the arabian slave trade in lybia and talk about humanitarian mission?
Gotta be shittin me.
Also Aljazeera was against Gadaffi and has a clear agenda, how about you post something from a news source not blatantly partisan?
You did nothing in Syria? The US armed ISIS, you did more than enough in Syria.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

I actually think some neocons really believe it, they have that much faith in American power and statecraft that they think that the next time it really will work. In the case of Libya there was an organic uprising so they must've hoped that would make it different from Iraq where we just stormed in despite no real opposition to Saddam since the revolts of the Shia and Kurds in the 90s.

Often they are lead astray by people they see as insiders like exiled opposition politicians or actors within the country who assure them that it'll work out. Happened both in Iraq and in Libya and its because these actors hope that the US will give them privileged positions in the new regime.

There may be more true believers these days who are divorced from the Machiavellian nature of neoconservative ideology. Similar to how a lot of the old school conservatives were pro-choice and anti-gun and got beat by populist Democrats in the South, so they started pandering to the God & guns crowd and now today's generation of conservatives doesn't even realize that party realignment took place. And now instead of Ivy league-educated Republican politicians like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley just pandering to the Q crowd, you've got up and coming Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert who've drank the Kool-Aid themselves. They're completely fucking nuts and can't be brought to reason. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

 

[jeremyemilio]

2008 was the test of this, for Dems and Republicans. And neither side came out looking good.

If John McCain and Barack Obama are demons in the eyes of their political opponents, then it's hard to imagine there being hope for anyone else.

 

[IGIT]

hi GreenGorilla,

So you gonna ignore the reawakening of the arabian slave trade in lybia and talk about humanitarian mission?

"arabian slave trade"

lol.

Libya is being flooded by refugees from West Africa because Italy and France and the rest of EU doesn't want them, so they're stuck in Libya, and the locals have turned to human trafficking and slavery.

maybe Muamar would have mowed those refugees down in a hail of machine gun fire instead, who knows?

one thing is for sure, though - the intervention in Libya was strictly driven by the EU. it was their operation. blaming the US, which played only a support role, for the post war planning is a little like blaming Canada for the post invasion mess of W Bush's adventure in Iraq.

i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert who've drank the Kool-Aid themselves. They're completely fucking nuts and can't be brought to reason. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

hiya Jackie,

...and we should encourage the success of these inmates, because it spells an end to the GOP, sooner or later.

people like Taylor Greene and Boebert will eventually destroy the GOP as a functioning party, because they're both crazy. they're crazy in ways that Ted Cruz couldn't even begin to aspire to.

*muses*

this is what Mrs. Boebert said of Qanon; “I hope that this is real because it only means America is getting stronger and better, and people are returning to conservative values, and that’s what I am for.”

lol.

the emergence of Qanon means America is getting "stronger and better". i love these people.

*prays*

i pray they're still going strong in the 2022 elections.

- IGIT

 

[PEB]

Could you ever imagine a conservative running for president that you wouldn't absolutely despise? Not that you'd ever vote for him, but if he were polite and well-spoken, and simultaneously embodied conservative values, would it be possible that you didn't completely hate his guts?

This is a totally serious question.

There is a ton of Republicans I like but not popular with many democrats an Republicans. This is why they would never win.

Mike DeWine, Charles Baker, John Kasich, Brian Sandoval, Larry Hogan an many more. They are what I consider common sense Republicans.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

hiya Jackie,

...and we should encourage the success of these inmates, because it spells an end to the GOP, sooner or later.

people like Taylor Greene and Boebert will eventually destroy the GOP as a functioning party, because they're both crazy. they're crazy in ways that Ted Cruz couldn't even begin to aspire to.

*muses*

this is what Mrs. Boebert said of Qanon; “I hope that this is real because it only means America is getting stronger and better, and people are returning to conservative values, and that’s what I am for.”

lol.

the emergence of Qanon means America is getting "stronger and better". i love these people.

*prays*

i pray they're still going strong in the 2022 elections.

- IGIT

No doubt. Especially if Trump starts the Patriot Party or at least undermines the Republican Party and their current candidates...

 

[IGIT]

No doubt. Especially if Trump starts the Patriot Party or at least undermines the Republican Party and their current candidates...

hiya Jackie,

you really got to read the comments section in Townhall. its just never lets me down.

there are just comment after comment about how they how Donald will start his own party. then one commenter will suggest, "but...doesn't that mean we'll never win an election?", and the wingnuts just gloss over it and forge onward.

Qanon is really a wonderful gift to the Democratic Party, as are MTG and Boebert.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Mike DeWine, Charles Baker, John Kasich, Brian Sandoval, Larry Hogan an many more. They are what I consider common sense Republicans.

hi PEB,

the readership at RedState.com and Townhall.com fantasize about cutting Kasich's head off and putting it on a pike.

- IGIT

 

[Hollywood Jack]

hiya Jackie,

you really got to read the comments section in Townhall. its just never lets me down.

there are just comment after comment about how they how Donald will start his own party. then one commenter will suggest, "but...doesn't that mean we'll never win an election?", and the wingnuts just gloss over it and forge onward.

Qanon is really a wonderful gift to the Democratic Party, as are MTG and Boebert.

- IGIT