2020 Democratic Nominee

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The Assad regime:

1) Is a close ally of our foremost enemy that has actually attacked the United States (i.e., Russia).  It's not just that "we cannot control him (or sell him weapons);" it's that the Assad regime gives Russia a base of operations in a strategic region and provides Russia with a port in the Mediterranean from which the Russian Navy can challenge American forces and American allies.

2) Is a close ally of our foremost adversary in the region (i.e., Iran) and has worked with Iran closely to attack American allies and destabilize the region.  I can have no stomach for invading Iran, and still recognize that Iran is a malign force in the Middle East.  And so its very close ally is likewise a malign force.

3) Is an avowed enemy of two of our closest allies in the region (i.e., Israel and Turkey).  And as many problems as I may have with the Israeli and Turkish governments at the moment, they remain important regional allies, one of which being bound to us by a mutual-defense treaty.  

4) And yeah--used poison gas on its own people.  And if you don't think that's a big deal, then you should go back and review some of the histories of World War I.  There's a reason that has been taboo for a century.

How has Syria acted to destabilize the region?  By not being overthrown by US backed rebels having ties to extremist groups like al Nusra? lol.  The US has done far more than any country on Earth to destabilize the region, so it's hard to take that concern very seriously.  

The main contention in the points you list is that it's in the interest of the US to further US hegemony in the MENA and Assad stands athwart of that goal, making him an enemy of the US.  However, it's precisely this interest that Tulsi is challenging - that it's actually in the interest of the American populace to seek hegemony in the region.  It's her contention that it is immoral and not worth the blood and money.  Was US hegemony worth 9/11?  Was it worth the lives of the Americans who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the lives of the hundreds of thousands civilians who perished from those conflicts?  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

46 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

This guy fucks

[bolverk 29402]

Pete is really impressing me. If he's in politics for the long haul, I can definitely see him clambering his way to the top someday. Hopefully, sooner than later. 

[Ghost of LL 15492]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

How has Syria acted to destabilize the region?  By not being overthrown by US backed rebels having ties to extremist groups like al Nusra? lol.  The US has done far more than any country on Earth to destabilize the region, so it's hard to take that concern very seriously.  

The main contention in the points you list is that it's in the interest of the US to further US hegemony in the MENA and Assad stands athwart of that goal, making him an enemy of the US.  However, it's precisely this interest that Tulsi is challenging - that it's actually in the interest of the American populace to seek hegemony in the region.  It's her contention that it is immoral and not worth the blood and money.  Was US hegemony worth 9/11?  Was it worth the lives of the Americans who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the lives of the hundreds of thousands civilians who perished from those conflicts?  

 

So I take it you're completely unfamiliar with Syria's actions in Lebanon over the past 40 years.  Or with its support for various terrorist organizations, including (but not limited to) Hizbullah.  

And no--we have not done more than any country on Earth to destabilize the region.  That trophy probably goes to the Neo-Assyrian Empire 2,800 years ago.  Or perhaps to the Mongol Empire 760 years ago.  If, if you want to get a bit more recent, I'd probably point to the French and British in the last century.

But what that lengthy history reflects is that the region has always been inherently unstable, and stability has only ever been imposed by an external (depending on how we're defining the "region") hegemon.  Whether it was the Persian Empire or the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire or the British Empire, the region has always and, owing to the divergent peoples that populate it, almost certainly will always have a hegemon.

The question is: who will that hegemon be?

Iran and Russia want to take that role.  Syria would like to help them.  Does anybody honestly think it is in America's national interest to see Iran and Russia assert their hegemony over the Middle East?  Does anybody honestly think America's economic interests will be furthered by that development?

Edited February 7, 2019 by Ghost of LL

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

This guy fucks

He's making me moist.

[Js1 85110]

This is an actual hit piece. It’s been right wing bullshit for years and unsubstantiated 

 

[David Dennison 18660]

When you read about the alleged "mistreatment" suffered by staffers, it's laughable.

[4Pete 156]

In marketing and PR, that's just called "climbing the ladder."

[Underdog 28457]

8 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I'd throw a hatefuck to the one in the middle. 

[pyrohornIII 4809]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/us/politics/beto-orourke-president.html

 

A good article on Beto and his years in NYC.  How they influenced him and how he is struggling with the decision to run or not

 

[Fondren & Main 6670]

Virginia seems like a cool state full of cool people doing cool things.  Y’all should look there! 🤣

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

So I take it you're completely unfamiliar with Syria's actions in Lebanon over the past 40 years.  Or with its support for various terrorist organizations, including (but not limited to) Hizbullah.  

And no--we have not done more than any country on Earth to destabilize the region.  That trophy probably goes to the Neo-Assyrian Empire 2,800 years ago.  Or perhaps to the Mongol Empire 760 years ago.  If, if you want to get a bit more recent, I'd probably point to the French and British in the last century.

But what that lengthy history reflects is that the region has always been inherently unstable, and stability has only ever been imposed by an external (depending on how we're defining the "region") hegemon.  Whether it was the Persian Empire or the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire or the British Empire, the region has always and, owing to the divergent peoples that populate it, almost certainly will always have a hegemon.

The question is: who will that hegemon be?

Iran and Russia want to take that role.  Syria would like to help them.  Does anybody honestly think it is in America's national interest to see Iran and Russia assert their hegemony over the Middle East?  Does anybody honestly think America's economic interests will be furthered by that development?

So the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and not the US’ liquidation of Saddam’s regime and it’s support of rebel groups in Syria, is responsible for current instability in the region?  Okay.  

Also, you didn’t answer my question. Are the losses in life and other costs brought about by our actions worth the price of seeking hegemony in the region?  

It is difficult to say what exactly the result would be from an American withdrawal from the region, but it’s hard to argue our actions have made the region a better place. More importantly, we are the ones responsible for the consequences of those actions.  Those are people you and I helped kill.  It is not our responsibility to unilaterally destabilize or liquidate problematic regimes, particularly when we are not principally motivated by the welfare of the population in question. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

(Isn’t there a thread on Syria?)

I’d like to talk more about Beto’s time as a nanny, Klobuchar beating her underlings with wire hangers, and Pete Bootyleg’s fresh faced vitality.

[Fozzz 152]

Beto is a clown. 

[Anastasis 23394]

Is Beto in or fucking not? Asking for my predictit account. 

[Celery Man 20886]

When Warren talks about stuff, I like her. I just don’t think she’ll survive. Would happily vote for her.

Buttigieg is great.

I saw some bitching on Twitter about Klobuchar’s bill. I would agree if it was presented as some sort of panacea. It seems like it means making 529s eligible for trade schools and stuff like that. That seems fairly reasonable, and something that would benefit middle class people. Middle class people who are making it and doing ok maybe, but regular people. Maybe I’m misunderstanding how it was presented.

[Celery Man 20886]

When Warren talks about stuff, I like her. I just don’t think she’ll survive. Would happily vote for her.

Buttigieg is great.

I saw some bitching on Twitter about Klobuchar’s bill. I would agree if it was presented as some sort of panacea. It seems like it means making 529s eligible for trade schools and stuff like that. That seems fairly reasonable, and something that would benefit middle class people. Middle class people who are making it and doing ok maybe, but regular people. Maybe I’m misunderstanding how it was presented.

[Fozzz 152]

They’re going to anoint Harris, and I doubt it will be that competitive. 

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

29 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

This would be hilarious. America would melt down after 2020 if that happens.

Why?

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 hours ago, Fozzz said:

They’re going to anoint Harris, and I doubt it will be that competitive. 

"They" don't have the power they had in 2016 and Harris doesn't have decades of chits to call in and decades of bloody loyalty oaths from lanyard-wearing psychopaths. No doubt the establishment prefers Harris at this point and would rather have her than Warren or Bernie.

But Beto might captivate the establishment. Too early to tell.

[Js1 85110]

Firehouse Strategies (never heard of 'em) has 2020 surveys for the first 3 states:

Iowa: Biden leads with 25% to Harris 17%.  Warren at 11/Bernie at 10.  Nearly a quarter is "unsure"

NH: Biden leads with 22% to Harris/Warren's 13%.  35% "unsure"

SC: Biden crushing with 36% to Harris' 12%.  But 31% "unsure"

Klobuchar, Beto and Booker don't break 5% in any state. Gillibrand, Castro and Bloomberg ain't breaking 1%.

 

Tldr - Democrats like Biden because he has the highest name recognition.  They like Harris a lot too, but she's more unknown.  Bernie isn't doing so hot.  But 25-30% of the Democratic primary electorate hasn't made up their minds yet. 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Js1

[bad_teammate 13132]

Bernie isn't even trying and he's given no indication that he's going to run.

If he jumps in, those numbers change a lot. Millions of people are waiting.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

9 hours ago, Fozzz said:

So the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and not the US’ liquidation of Saddam’s regime and it’s support of rebel groups in Syria, is responsible for current instability in the region?  Okay.  

Also, you didn’t answer my question. Are the losses in life and other costs brought about by our actions worth the price of seeking hegemony in the region?  

It is difficult to say what exactly the result would be from an American withdrawal from the region, but it’s hard to argue our actions have made the region a better place. More importantly, we are the ones responsible for the consequences of those actions.  Those are people you and I helped kill.  It is not our responsibility to unilaterally destabilize or liquidate problematic regimes, particularly when we are not principally motivated by the welfare of the population in question. 

There can be--and are--multiple sources of instability.  The American action to remove the Hussein regime in Iraq was intended to remove one source of instability; it created another in its place.  Such is the nature of an unstable region.

As to your "question," I'm not going to answer it because it begs the question.  You presuppose that the purpose of our involvement in Syria is "seeking hegemony in the region."  It is not.  It is primarily about (1) protecting the Kurds, who have been a consistent and dogged ally, and (2) defeating ISIS.  Both are objectives worth pursuing, and both objectives are worth the rater limited investment we're putting toward pursuing them.

And it's not difficult to say what would result from American withdrawal.  It's apparent from experience.  And I don't even need to go back hundreds of years for that experience--look at what happened when Obama abruptly pulled out of Iraq (i.e., ISIS (nee AQI) grew to the point of being able to declare a caliphate).  Look at what happened just last year in Syria after Trump's foolish announcement--the area got a whole lot more deadly for American troops and our allies.

And by the way--I don't even need to look at experience.  All I need to consult is common sense.  If we break our words to our allies, who will ever trust us again?  Why would they?  It's not about being a hegemon; it's about having any role in international affairs ever again.  Why would anyone want to be our ally if we have a demonstrated history of betraying our allies?

[GSU&UT 1798]

I agree with some of you, maybe it's just BT on here, that Biden is going to really face a lot of criticism this time around for being touchy/creepy as well as tough-on-crime criminal justice past. It may be a bloodbath in the primary season for dems in 2020.

Edited February 7, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Hank Kingsley 20708]

Biden is toast. He will be heavily criticized and thrown in the trash fairly quickly. 

 

 

[Fozzz 152]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

There can be--and are--multiple sources of instability.  The American action to remove the Hussein regime in Iraq was intended to remove one source of instability; it created another in its place.  Such is the nature of an unstable region.

As to your "question," I'm not going to answer it because it begs the question.  You presuppose that the purpose of our involvement in Syria is "seeking hegemony in the region."  It is not.  It is primarily about (1) protecting the Kurds, who have been a consistent and dogged ally, and (2) defeating ISIS.  Both are objectives worth pursuing, and both objectives are worth the rater limited investment we're putting toward pursuing them.

And it's not difficult to say what would result from American withdrawal.  It's apparent from experience.  And I don't even need to go back hundreds of years for that experience--look at what happened when Obama abruptly pulled out of Iraq (i.e., ISIS (nee AQI) grew to the point of being able to declare a caliphate).  Look at what happened just last year in Syria after Trump's foolish announcement--the area got a whole lot more deadly for American troops and our allies.

And by the way--I don't even need to look at experience.  All I need to consult is common sense.  If we break our words to our allies, who will ever trust us again?  Why would they?  It's not about being a hegemon; it's about having any role in international affairs ever again.  Why would anyone want to be our ally if we have a demonstrated history of betraying our allies?

So the CIA program to train and provide material support to rebels in Syria, including ones linked with extremist sectarian groups, was part of a plan to protect the Kurds and/or defeat ISIS?  It was that program that necessitated Russia's entry into the conflict and greatly exasperated it.  Moreover, it was this program, along with support from our "allies" in the Gulf, that fueled the rise of ISIS' "Caliphate."  Hell, we even predicted and supported that outcome.

Quote

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

21 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Biden is toast. He will be heavily criticized and thrown in the trash fairly quickly. 

I agree. "Old & white" is not what you want to counter the Republicans/Trump in 2020.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

12 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

So the CIA program to train and provide material support to rebels in Syria, including ones linked with extremist sectarian groups, was part of a plan to protect the Kurds and/or defeat ISIS?  It was that program that necessitated Russia's entry into the conflict and greatly exasperated it.  Moreover, it was this program, along with support from our "allies" in the Gulf, that fueled the rise of ISIS' "Caliphate."  Hell, we even predicted and supported that outcome.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

 

So I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what brought about Russia's entry into the conflict.

Beyond that, the Guardian piece to which you link wildly misrepresents the intelligence report.  If you go and read the report, it is clear that it does not promote the rise of AQI/ISIS, but instead characterizes it as a "grave" threat to the Iraqi state, which the United States has a keen interest in maintaining.

Look, man, I don't know if you're being lazy or just intellectually dishonest, but either way--dude, I've got a lot of tables.

 

[Jhawk 1075]

12 hours ago, Js1 said:

This is an actual hit piece. It’s been right wing bullshit for years and unsubstantiated 

 

This is hilarious. Just like the pee pee dossier then? Every major outlet had it and none would run it. Only buzzfeed who is a fringe blog that regularly runs stories so you can find out what type of pop tart you are. But that is real and this is a fringe hit piece. 

It is thought process like this why people like warren are going to eliminate themselves early.  The dems have set a standard with their idealistic view of society that even they can’t live up to. Now the chickens are coming to roost and it’s all unfair and fringe accusations whether it be against warren, Northam, the Virginia Lt. gov, or this bitch. 

We shouldnhave a referendum vote to kick every elected official out of office right now. The bureaucracy can run itself until the new flow gets up to speed. 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Jhawk

[Celery Man 20886]

I love it when people lead with delusional ramblings.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

The American action to remove the Hussein regime in Iraq was intended to remove one source of instability; it created another in its place.  Such is the nature of an unstable region.

Love to use racism to absolve my imperial nation of all responsibility.

[David Dennison 18660]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie isn't even trying and he's given no indication that he's going to run.

If he jumps in, those numbers change a lot. Millions of people are waiting.

Bernie cannot win without the black vote. 

[Ghost of LL 15492]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Love to use racism to absolve my imperial nation of all responsibility.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Ghost of LL

[bad_teammate 13132]

Our adventure in Iraq was not intended to remove a source of instability. That makes no sense and it's not even an argument the Bush Administration tried to make, as far as I can recall, and they said A LOT of untrue and dumb things in the desperate run-up to a pointless war.

 

What "region" is not unstable? Europe is responsible for two World Wars, both of them extremely recent. Our own nation had an insanely bloody Civil War not long ago. We are still involved in an unresolved war in Korea.

 

I’m sure “those savages just can’t keep it together” is a convincing argument for you, but it’s racist and false.

[Fozzz 152]

39 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

So I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what brought about Russia's entry into the conflict.

Beyond that, the Guardian piece to which you link wildly misrepresents the intelligence report.  If you go and read the report, it is clear that it does not promote the rise of AQI/ISIS, but instead characterizes it as a "grave" threat to the Iraqi state, which the United States has a keen interest in maintaining.

Look, man, I don't know if you're being lazy or just intellectually dishonest, but either way--dude, I've got a lot of tables.

 

No it does not.  The report states "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia Expansion (Iraq and Iran)."  As for the identity of those "supporting powers," the report states "The West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey support the opposition," and particularly, "opposition forces are trying to control the Eastern area (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders.  Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts."  

The report explicitly states that the West (who could that be?) in 2012 supported the establishment of a Salafist principality in Eastern Syria...which is exactly what happened two years later.  As the Guardian article notes, the report is not a policy document, it's merely an analysis of what was occurring in the region at that time, including our support for what would become ISIS.  The end of the report is a warning from the author that our support for the opposition's establishment of a Salafist principality could result in the ISI  declaring an Islamic State.  

[Ghost of LL 15492]

2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

No it does not.  The report states "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia Expansion (Iraq and Iran)."  As for the identity of those "supporting powers," the report states "The West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey support the opposition," and particularly, "opposition forces are trying to control the Eastern area (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders.  Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts."  

The report explicitly states that the West (who could that be?) in 2012 supported the establishment of a Salafist principality in Eastern Syria...which is exactly what happened two years later.  As the Guardian article notes, the report is not a policy document, it's merely an analysis of what was occurring in the region at that time, including our support for what would become ISIS.  The end of the report is a warning from the author that our support for the opposition's establishment of a Salafist principality could result in the ISI  declaring an Islamic State.  

When you read the report in context, it is clear that it is not talking about the United States when it reports on who wants a Salafist principality.  It's trying to be vague, in case it is ever leaked by Wikileaks, but the context is clear that it's talking about the Gulf States.

Go back and read it again through that lens.  Because it's very clear what it's saying.

And anyway--there's a link to it above.  I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about what it does and doesn't say.  The report speaks for itself.

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Our adventure in Iraq was not intended to remove a source of instability. That makes no sense and it's not even an argument the Bush Administration tried to make, as far as I can recall, and they said A LOT of untrue and dumb things in the desperate run-up to a pointless war.

 

 

 

What "region" is not unstable? Europe is responsible for two World Wars, both of them extremely recent. Our own nation had an insanely bloody Civil War not long ago. We are still involved in an unresolved war in Korea.

 

 

 

I’m sure “those savages just can’t keep it together” is a convincing argument for you, but it’s racist and false.

 

 

So Western Europe*, which hasn't had a war in nearly 75 years, and North America, which hasn't had a major war in 120 years, are somehow as unstable as the Middle East, which has (at least) two civil wars going (both of which being proxy wars for major regional players), at least two failed states (three if you want to put Somalia in the region; maybe more depending on what you think of the Sudan and South Sudan), multiple low-level insurgencies, countless autocracies that could collapse at any moment, and . . . Israel?

Completely the same, right?

 

 

 

* Southeastern Europe, however, has, and I would regard it has every bit as unstable as the Middle East.  And I'm sorry if that blows up your whole "Ghost is a racist because he things only non-white people inhabit unstable regions" theory.

God, you're a fucking putz.  

Edited February 7, 2019 by Ghost of LL

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

So Western Europe*, which hasn't had a war in nearly 75 years, and North America, which hasn't had a major war in 120 years, are somehow as unstable as the Middle East, which has (at least) two civil wars going (both of which being proxy wars for major regional players), at least two failed states (three if you want to put Somalia in the region; maybe more depending on what you think of the Sudan and South Sudan), multiple low-level insurgencies, countless autocracies that could collapse at any moment, and . . . Israel?

Western Europe is not being actively destabilized by more powerful nations, so I outright reject the idea that the Middle East is more unstable in any meaningful sense. It's like looking at two puddles, leaving one alone, and then constantly smacking the other with a stick while complaining, "Why won't this second puddle be calm?!"

And what about Israel? You literally just named a country and put a question mark at the end of it. Israel is the PERFECT example of Western Powers actively destabilizing the region, both in the initial formation of Israel and the West's support of Israel in its perpetual expansionism.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

I put a question mark after Israel because the sentence was a question.

I'm not opining on the reasons why the Middle East is unstable.  I'm simply positing that it is unstable.  

It is you who makes the completely stupid claims that (1) the Middle East is no less stable than Western Europe and North America, and (2) it is racist to observe otherwise.

Now, having recognized the apparent stupidity of your assertions, you attempt to move the goalposts.

Fuck you--you're every bit as bad as the trumpkin trolls. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not opining on the reasons why the Middle East is unstable.  I'm simply positing that it is unstable.  

It is you who makes the completely stupid claims that (1) the Middle East is no less stable than Western Europe and North America, and (2) it is racist to observe otherwise.

Here is what you said:
"The American action to remove the Hussein regime in Iraq was intended to remove one source of instability; it created another in its place. Such is the nature of an unstable region."

Nature. Hrmmmm.

And again, in no sense was the American action to remove Hussein "intended to remove one source of instability". That is ridiculous.

Edited February 7, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Bama Chick 28596]

Soooooo, Beto sure is cool, yeah?

[Zonahorn 8079]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Soooooo, Beto sure is cool, yeah?

I think that train has left the station for now.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Here is what you said:
"The American action to remove the Hussein regime in Iraq was intended to remove one source of instability; it created another in its place. Such is the nature of an unstable region."

Nature. Hrmmmm.

And again, in no sense was the American action to remove Hussein "intended to remove one source of instability". That is ridiculous.

You're the only one "hrmmm"-ing about that.  It is the nature of unstable regions that when one source of regional instability is removed, the region often (paradoxically) becomes more unstable.  That's not unique to the Middle East, and it's not a commentary on the people who live there.  It is a commentary on unstable regions.

To wit--the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century was unquestionably a source of European instability.  But its removal from the Balkans over the 50 years leading up to 1914 didn't make Europe more stable; it paradoxically made it less stable.

And finally, your argument that American action to remove the Hussein regime wasn't partly motivated by a desire to stabilize the region is belied by the writings of neo-conservatives close to the Administration who were promoting that exact thing, including (most notably, but certainly not limited to) Kenneth Pollack in his book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.

[bad_teammate 13132]

35 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It is the nature of unstable regions that when one source of regional instability is removed, the region often (paradoxically) becomes more unstable.

Again, "nature". You have no standing the judge the "nature" of the region and doing so is a chauvinist (and ignorant) pursuit.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Again, "nature". You have no standing the judge the "nature" of the region and doing so is a chauvinist (and ignorant) pursuit.

This is intensely stupid.  From Merriam-Webster: Nature: the inherent character or basic constitution (see CONSTITUTION sense 2) of a person or thing : ESSENCE

Things have a "nature."  It is not "chauvinist" or racist to comment on them.

And, by the way, the nature of things can change.  Western Europe 1,000 years ago had an intensely unstable and warlike nature; the Middle East rather less so.  It is not chauvinistic or racist to observe as much.

Quit trolling.  You've lost the point.

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Things have a "nature."

And you have no standing to judge the "nature" of the region.

Literally an avatar of Harry Flashman for god's sake.

[David Dennison 18660]

I'm shocked, shocked that colonialism leads to instability in a region. Who saw that coming?

[Ghost of LL 15492]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And you have no standing to judge the "nature" of the region.

Literally an avatar of Harry Flashman for god's sake.

No standing?

What the fuck does that even mean?

Nevermind--that's a rhetorical question.  I don't really care; I'm done feeding the troll.

[JimmyJames 12271]

55 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You're the only one "hrmmm"-ing about that.  It is the nature of unstable regions that when one source of regional instability is removed, the region often (paradoxically) becomes more unstable.  That's not unique to the Middle East, and it's not a commentary on the people who live there.  It is a commentary on unstable regions.

To wit--the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century was unquestionably a source of European instability.  But its removal from the Balkans over the 50 years leading up to 1914 didn't make Europe more stable; it paradoxically made it less stable.

And finally, your argument that American action to remove the Hussein regime wasn't partly motivated by a desire to stabilize the region is belied by the writings of neo-conservatives close to the Administration who were promoting that exact thing, including (most notably, but certainly not limited to) Kenneth Pollack in his book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.

Hmmmmmmmmm

[JimmyJames 12271]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Again, "nature". You have no standing the judge the "nature" of the region and doing so is a chauvinist (and ignorant) pursuit.

Hmmmmmmmm