Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

whitewashing HRC's war crimes because you think her interventions were justified is nagl either

There were plenty of so-called liberals who constantly pressed Bill Clinton to intervene in Bosnia, in order To Do Something for altruistic motives, and who were vocally disappointed when, for several years, he refused. Then he changed his spots regarding Kosovo, for seemingly the same reasons he'd rejected for so long. Then he was praised (except for the Chinese embassy fuck up).

no way. one and a half million dead from vietnam. intervening to help topple gaddafi after he threatened a genocide in benghazi is qualitatively (as well as obviously quantitatively) different

tbf Morbz seems to have something of a mental block when it comes to scale/numbers

justifiable != justified. i don't know if she was right to intervene in libya (syria suggests to me that there isn't a right answer). i do know that she didn't approve dropping agent orange on the libyan public to repress their revolution. she did propose a no-fly zone which gave the rebels an advantage bc gaddafi could no longer bomb them with impunity. these are very different things.

The Slow Bern

2oz habenero-infused blanco tequila
1ozMescal
1/2 oz lime
1/2 oz overproof rum floater
cinnamon stick stirrer
Serve on fire, with a shot glass of ice water

and there are many people who blame bill for /not/ intervening in rwanda. there are no easy answers for most of these events.

in typing this post i may have changed my mind about jfk, who was a warmonger (truly damning epitaph in a decades-later footnote to an early-60s vidal piece about jfk: "secretly, i think he thought war was fun") but i was trying to make a point about lbj's vacancy on this front

― denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Friday, March 4, 2016 6:27 PM (6 seconds ago)

lol at "secretly, i think he thought"

scoreboard morality is so beauuuuutiful, as Jimmy Breslin usta say

i'm sure your disgust with scoreboard morality won't stop you from using it when you think it proves your argument

"no way. one and a half million dead from vietnam."

The argument is not that Vietnam was a less bad military engagement than Libya, more that LBJ decision to escalate in Vietnam very much a construct of that time and mostly reflects his weakness to resist terrible advice (and a nonsensical narrative) whereas I think Hilary's decision to involve us in Libya reflect more specifically to her politics.

that's crazy hair splitting. what politics does her intervention in libya reflect? that the US should use military might to impose a no-fly zone when we think a dictator is about to murder a ton of ppl? i feel like the warmongering critique only makes sense if you don't look at any details.

That the US can solve these issues with military intervention without creating a fuck ton of other issues.

is that what you actually believe she thinks? that US interventions don't come w/ unintended consequences? or is yr complaint that despite knowing that she still thinks in certain cases it is worth doing? i am not in favor of an isolationist military policy which sounds like the only alternative that you'd be okay w/.

LBJ basically reversed his own policy when he escalated; in the 1964 election he'd promised he wouldn't send "american boys" to fight in asia. his tragic flaw was that he seemed to be able to bully/stand up to everyone in the universe save the ivy league foreign policy experts.

JFK otoh talked a lot of hawkish talk but seemed to flinch at actual military engagement most of the time (not just during the missile crisis but during the bay of pigs, where he infuriated pentagon hardliners by refusing to send military support to bail out the failed invasion). the vietnam intervention is the worst blot on his record but it looks fairly minor compared to what happened after him.

his tragic flaw was that he seemed to be able to bully/stand up to everyone in the universe save the ivy league foreign policy experts.

The man was a great listener and never showed contempt towards older men more experienced than he, so that's the other tragic flaw.

I think it's the number of cases she still thinks it's worth doing.

"evil goddamn warmonger" two of these three words are theologically charged language meant to exclusively appeal to reactionary impulses and the third is a hyperbolic mischaracterization that acts as a sop to flatter the speaker's belief that they aren't a disgusting human being.

― Mordy, Friday, March 4, 2016 12:55 PM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh i see i have been looking at it all wrong. it was wrong for me to look at her public record of voting for the Iraq War and selling weapons to the Saudis and call her a warmonger bc grammar.

oh adampaws

every president has sold weapons to the saudis

just dropped in here to get my daily dose of Clinton condescension

every president is a warmonger obv

p much!

which renders it m/l invalid as a criticism. better to identify specific instances/policies that you agree/disagree with, and take it for granted that whoever you vote for is going to be involved in the murder of innocents.

it is possible to think that particular interventions were not smart or admirable without being an "isolationist"

"which renders it m/l invalid as a criticism. better to identify specific instances/policies that you agree/disagree with, and take it for granted that whoever you vote for is going to be involved in the murder of innocents"

So you don't think some politicians are more or less likely than others?

i agree. it's also possible to believe that particular interventions were not smart or admirable without believing they were motivated by belligerence and bloodthirst. xp

400,000 ppl dead in syria so far (mostly casualties of SAF and Putin), 800,000 were killed in rwanda. UN airforces in Libya killed approx 1,000 ppl and NATO killed approx 1,000-5,000 civilians in Kosovo. i don't accept the argument that non-intervention in the face of genocide is the right move and i don't need to go back to ww2 to make it.

So you don't think some politicians are more or less likely than others?

sure, there's a scale. Guys like Cheney obviously more genuinely bloodthirsty and prone to military adventurism than, say, Warren Christopher.

I'm hardly a Clintonista but Mordy is generally otm here imo

Update: Trump all "Oh, let me change my mind again."

https://twitter.com/nataliewsj/status/705824745971961856

quel surprise

ya gotta be flexible!

also incoherent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ZTdg6AzBA

Did you ever see Warren Christopher play backgammon? Bloodthirsty.

Rubio, by contrast, is just thirsty

when we think a dictator is about to murder a ton of ppl

the US is entirely neutral about dictatorship as a form of guvmint in other lands.

are they our clients/ facilitators or not?

Qaddaffi kind of a funny example there - he was our enemy until he wasn't and then he was again

obviously some dictators are more useful to us than others

I think it depends on the administration. Obama was supportive of the Egyptian post-Mubarak elections and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. When Sisi conducted his coup I believe official US policy was to deny any aid or military support (though that was later rescinded, I would argue it's because Obama has an article of faith that pragmatic engagement is better than cold withdrawal).

Arguably his entire relationship to the Arab Spring has been one of support for revolutionary movements with the assumption that they would result in Democratic governance (though not in the case of Iran's Green Movement which is obviously its own complicated set of facts since we clearly do not support the regime there).

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/secretary-clinton-in-2009-i-really-consider-president-and-mrs-mubarak-to-be-friends-of-my-family.html

makes one long for the Dulles days when such gloop was unnecessary for PR

QUESTION: How do you view the presidency in Egypt, the future of the presidency in Egypt?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s for the people of Egypt to decide. That is a very important issue that really is up to Egyptians.

yeah i knew that was comin'

you really are the Donna Wasserman-Brazile of hairy pothead Phillies fans

Just want to say Mordy making a ton of sense here, Shakey as well. The contemporary US is not likely to get a Gandhi type president with squeaky-clean hands any time soon, no matter how much we might wish it were so. The world is messy and intervening has often been wrong, disastrous, or both; so has not intervening. If, to you, HRC is best described as a bloodthirsty warmonger with the blood of children dripping from her fangs, don't vote for her I guess.

uh oh knives out/baseball ref

If, to you, HRC is best described as a bloodthirsty warmonger with the blood of children dripping from her fangs, by her actual voting record don't vote for her I guess.

who is donna wasserman-brazile. is it an amalgamation of donna brazile and debbie wasserman schultz? i don't think i know enough about donna brazile to understand the burn sadly.

Donna Brazile in the outfield.

makes one long for the Dulles days when such gloop was unnecessary for PR

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Friday, March 4, 2016 7:31 PM (8 minutes ago)

after the kissinger thing i made some sarcastic remark to my gf like "who's hillary going to be cheering for next, allen dulles?" and lo and behold literally two days later the clinton campaign was attacking bernie for criticizing the dulles-era cia

Next up: J.Edgar and Herbert Hoover.