― alma, Thursday, 29 December 2005 00:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 December 2005 00:30 (eighteen years ago) link
Girliemen.
― dali madison's nut (donut), Thursday, 29 December 2005 00:59 (eighteen years ago) link
Which generation does Pat Buchanan belong to, then? Certainly not the 'greatest' generation, the fucker.
― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Thursday, 29 December 2005 01:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 29 December 2005 04:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 29 December 2005 04:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 29 December 2005 04:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 29 December 2005 05:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 29 December 2005 06:30 (eighteen years ago) link
I'd love to see where the globe would go from there, but unfortunately, I think it would be hard to sleep for the frantic screams of the world willing to suck the US collective wang to get them back into the game.
― clouded vision, Thursday, 29 December 2005 11:34 (eighteen years ago) link
Pat Buchanan said something you might actually agree with! OH NOES.Activate ILx anti-conservative hivemind!
― gbx (skowly), Thursday, 29 December 2005 14:01 (eighteen years ago) link
(1) The war in Iraq is unpopular both at home and abroad(2) If we were in the empire game, we'd stick it out.(3) Apparently we're not (PUSSIES), so we should rethink our policy.
I find little to disagree with here. The Bush Doctrine IS failing due to a lack of support (good), Pax Americana might not be a great idea (true), and rethinking our foreign policy is a good idea (hurray!).
― gbx (skowly), Thursday, 29 December 2005 14:07 (eighteen years ago) link
He's funny on the McLaughlin Group tho.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 December 2005 17:07 (eighteen years ago) link
It's not the first time he's said something I might agree with, it's just that I already know that I don't agree with his reasons for what he's saying.
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 29 December 2005 17:20 (eighteen years ago) link
It's not so much his observations -- which are of the "well duh" variety -- as the way he frames the issues:
Is this generation of Americans really up to the task? Is it really willing to pay indefinitely in blood and treasure to realize the ambitious agenda George W. Bush has set out?
...Is it not thus apparent the world does not really want an American empire, or American hegemony, or Bush's "democratic revolution"? Is it not equally apparent that we Americans, unwilling to conscript our young or further tax ourselves, cannot sustain a global policy that commits us to defending nations all over this world, most of which do not even like us?
He's pretending that the problem is with the "ambition" of the Bush agenda, and with some policy of "defending nations all over the world," as if this administration actually were propounding some bold notion of global liberty, and as if that's what the rest of the world is rejecting. When the real problem is the egomaniacal "we do whatever the fuck we want/America Fuck YEAH!" posture that these guys came into office with.
Frankly, I can't even tell what Buchanan's saying. If he really believes that the Bushies are promoting global democracy, then is he saying that we shouldn't be promoting global democracy? When he talks about a "new foreign policy" does he -- given his isolationist history -- really mean we should be even more self-centered and ignorant? I can't imagine that by "new foreign policy" he means "more active in international institutions, more willing to use diplomacy than guns, more respectful of treaties and international law." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want Buchanan setting policy any more than Cheney.
xpost: Hurting otm.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 29 December 2005 17:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 29 December 2005 17:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 December 2005 17:24 (eighteen years ago) link
Buchanan is ultimately an isolationist; he's the guy who actually used one of his RNC speeches(1992?) to go "We need to build a WALL around this country!"
xpost Shakey is right. His 2000 campaign ads were so delightful, in the paranoid/iso mold. I remember the one about a guy having a heart attack and dialing 911, then having to go thru an interminable list of "push one for service in spanish, push two for french..." and then dying. the ads ran during WWE shows.
Also, his magazine came out in support for Kerry, didn't it?
― kingfish holiday travesty (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 29 December 2005 17:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 29 December 2005 17:46 (eighteen years ago) link
This is my feeling as well. I actually agree with everyone w/r/t Pat arriving at the same conclusions as me (vis a vis the war and foreign policy) via logic I don't understand/appreciate. More and more, however, I'm of the mind that "lefties" should start adopting the Republican Big Tent Strategy -- agree with us on just a few issues? Fine! Come on in! Whatever it takes!
Dems are pretty bad at this, lately.
― gbx (skowly), Thursday, 29 December 2005 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link
No, it's not. Globalists seek global democracy for worldwide stability, so they can then put the dogs to work. If anything, America needs MORE of an "America FUCK YEAH!" foreign policy--one that is virtually non-existent. One where we stick up only for ourselves, both socially and economically.
The world doesn't want America's help, it is quite clear they are ungrateful and not worthy of the help we offer. That said, fuck the world, go America.
― clouded vision, Thursday, 29 December 2005 20:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 29 December 2005 21:47 (eighteen years ago) link
I am confused by this statement. How is DubyaCo's m.o. NOT totally self-serving "America FUCK YEAH!"?
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 December 2005 21:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― clouded vision, Thursday, 29 December 2005 23:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 December 2005 23:09 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.atmo.se/zino.aspx?pageID=44&documentID=274&articleID=399
― Lisa Lipstick, Thursday, 29 December 2005 23:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― Lisa Lipstick, Thursday, 29 December 2005 23:21 (eighteen years ago) link
Comedy gold!
He does not have Americas interests in mind, he has global corporations interests in mind.
To BushCo, these two interests are probably fairly congruent.
― Si.C@rter (SiC@rter), Thursday, 29 December 2005 23:21 (eighteen years ago) link
1. Not to be ruled by a higher power, or be accountable to other nations.
2. Not to give, give, give, and give some more, without getting anything return. We'd like just some respect, but apparantly THAT is too much to ask.
3. Not shipping blue collar and white collar jobs across seas using the "labor market" as a guise to pander to self-serving multinational corporations.
4. Not to be dependent on any other country or political entity throughout the world. This goes hand in hand with point #1.
5. Not to fund and help our biggest economic/military opponent: China. When I walk into Wal*Mart, I feel like I'm stabbing America and its greatness in the f*cking back. No more, however.
6. Not to join global initiatives. We are a sovereign nation, we make our own rules. End of story.
7. To get the U.N. off our f*cking soil, and prevent our tax dollars to going to any part of that worthless P.O.S. organization. We give them one year to pack their bags and find a suitable place for relocation (I think Brussels would be an excellent choice).
8. Withdrawl from the WTO.
9. Redeployment of the military, especially the National Guard, to the borders. They are called the National Guard for a reason.
10. Enlargement and greater modernization of the military. Not so that we can invade other countries, however, it'd be to show the rest of the world that we're still ready to kick ass if anyone wants to try us.
11. The Democratic and Republican parties should be dismantled and both sent to political party hell, as well as the 2-party system in general.
12. F*ck Canada. Send more guns up there. Illegally, if possible.
13. Stop calling Europe our allies, and stop helping them. There is a reason America came into existence, and its because our ancestors couldn't stand the continent to begin with. Next time Germany crosses the Rhine, let them do as they please. It doesn't affect us.
14. And for the love of God, lets stop acting like big business has that nation's interests in mind.
― clouded vision, Friday, 30 December 2005 02:18 (eighteen years ago) link
Apparently deciding which global initiatives we should sign onto and which we shouldn't isn't "sovereignty".
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 30 December 2005 02:38 (eighteen years ago) link
This one I also feel is somewhat misguided. I'm just enough of an altruist to think that sometimes giving is its own reward. Also I don't necessarily care about "getting some respect", although it depends on what exactly that means -- the way you have it here, it sounds like you mean "people should recognize that the U.S. is teh awesomest" and I disagree with that (even if the U.S. were the awesomest, I wouldn't care if people thought that). But if it means having a base level of "that U.S., that's an OK country", well, I certainly wouldn't expect people to think that of a nation which had a policy of not cooperating (and compromising) w/r/t global issues because it was "too sovereign for that kind of shit". That isn't a respectful attitude towards other nations, and isn't one that should garner respect in return.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 30 December 2005 02:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 30 December 2005 03:41 (eighteen years ago) link
abidgred for civility, from what are barack obama's flaws?
Design the perfect US foreign policy! Wait no let me guess Bernie already did it
― El Tomboto
Bernie is awful on foreign policy and basically the entire left acknowledges this
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)
I'd start with not giving the Saudis a bunch of money or drone bombing hospitals, how's that?
… …
Okay if we want to do this for real, and since I'm usually the hippie in the room at my day job I'm certainly game, should we have a thread?
Bombing hospitals is insanely good.
― the ghost of markers
definitely call it the American FP thread
― blog haus aka the scene raver (wins)
for the love of god if you really must do that revive an existing thread, having a new dedicated trump thread is bad enough
oh good this should be edifying
― Mordy
― El Tomboto, Saturday, 24 June 2017 17:43 (six years ago) link
pulling out of the Paris Agreement isn't helpful
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 24 June 2017 17:46 (six years ago) link
an isolationist USA wd be God's gift to the world
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 24 June 2017 17:55 (six years ago) link
When I walk into Wal*Mart, I feel like I'm stabbing America and its greatness in the f*cking back.
a little on the nose
― difficult listening hour, Saturday, 24 June 2017 19:23 (six years ago) link
First of all it's no longer possible to be isolationist - not even the DPRK gets to do that anymore, if ocean-faring ships didn't convince you, and airplanes, submarines and ICBMs don't convince you, you're an incorrigible cunt who likes to mouth off about shit you willfully refuse to comprehend. Thank god I don't know anybody like that.
That said, the US foreign policy could be much improved, but as I sort of implied on the other thread, it's optimal when it's minimally invasive/destructive/murderous, because it is always developed and executed more or less at the whim of 200M provincial townspeople who don't know why they talk funny over there and who would even eat that?
1. big (nuclear) stick is already evident to everyone, so why not pursue a collaborative, diplomacy-first policy where the goal is open borders and single markets everywhere? we shouldn't be afraid of anyone!2. we should push fair and safe labor policies on everyone who wants to do business with us - that's what the big stick is FOR - and Erik Loomis is OTM in his book3. multilateral exercises and confidence building measures should be THE THING that we do with everyone, not as signalling mechanisms (they're good for that, sure) but because they are good things to do! Everybody gets to be in a fight club with us. Let's do it. Have fun. And don't talk about fight club (wink, wink).4. we should press for a world where extradition treaties are universal and the country with the lightest penalties should almost always win, regardless of the perpetrator's country of origin. Just never let the perp back in to the country where the crimes were committed.
― El Tomboto, Saturday, 24 June 2017 21:16 (six years ago) link
Next time Germany crosses the Rhine, let them do as they please. It doesn't affect us.
― clouded vision, Friday, December 30, 2005 2:18 AM (eleven years ago)
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 24 June 2017 21:23 (six years ago) link
I might agree that labor policies needs to be much more to the center of diplomacy. Chain responsibility + support of unions. Not only does it help to protect Western workers, it's also key to the buildup of a local middle class, which is key to peaceful regime change.
― Frederik B, Saturday, 24 June 2017 21:32 (six years ago) link
Yes, and to cultural shifts towards egalitarian societies, where women are allowed to drive and LGBTQ folks are allowed to exist
― El Tomboto, Sunday, 25 June 2017 01:56 (six years ago) link
I mean we only have a few more decades - maybe only two, maybe not even that! where we can sustain the degree of economic leverage that allows the US to push the envelope in trade agreements - stop making it about goddamn IP piracy and make it about goddamn worker safety and living wages (granted, what we can't get right at home, we're unlikely to get right overseas).
I guess the even larger point for me is to stop using the DoD and our national security apparatus as our principle means of steering other nations, we should be up front, call C.R.E.A.M. like it is and use our heralded business acumen to effect change to make things better. I think you can be just as machiavellian as state-on-state wrestling requires without having myopic, completely short-term & selfish aims.
― El Tomboto, Sunday, 25 June 2017 02:05 (six years ago) link
But.... bombing stuff is so cool
― Οὖτις, Sunday, 25 June 2017 02:13 (six years ago) link
i worry about orienting US FP around trade. while it may foster friendly relationships in the short run, what about capitalism's inherent destructive tendencies? i think the web of climate change-induced crises is sure to create a need for a culprit and the US exporting its resource-intensive lifestyle everywhere is as good as any.
― nice cage (m bison), Sunday, 25 June 2017 02:22 (six years ago) link
what would you center us fp around, m bison?
― Frederik B, Sunday, 25 June 2017 07:52 (six years ago) link
Freud b
― quet inn tarnation (darraghmac), Sunday, 25 June 2017 09:05 (six years ago) link
oh what a dream conference table in this thread
imagine if i called anybody a "cunt", like some old political snatch
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 25 June 2017 12:16 (six years ago) link
us flag post
― Rodney Stooksbury for President (rushomancy), Sunday, 25 June 2017 12:31 (six years ago) link
Tom's, right?
I'm sure the non-psychotics among you saw my "isolationism" comment as a fantasy. POTUSes will drink the blood of children til our doom.
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 25 June 2017 12:33 (six years ago) link
I think a lot of voters probably responded to Trump's isolationist rhetoric during the campaign, actually. My dad specifically kept citing it.
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Sunday, 25 June 2017 12:36 (six years ago) link
Mordy, you're wrong on several counts. The resolution isn't about withdrawing support from Saudi Arabia fully (which, coincidentally, I would agree with), it's just about Yemen. And just because the Saudis are losing in Yemen doesn't mean they would be impacted by a lack of US aid there. So the US wouldn't help logistically with finding bombing targets, but the problem is that the KSA is bombing hospitals and marketplaces and genocidically starving the country anyway.
― Frederik B, Friday, 2 March 2018 10:26 (six years ago) link
The left needs to figure out what to do, and not just shout about what not to do.
I think I might be OK with the US 'doing' less in terms of foreign policy, actually.
― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Friday, 2 March 2018 17:01 (six years ago) link
in answer to thread q, drfarls:
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/the-one-important-ingredient-for-regional-hegemony-that-chinas-still-missing/
Looking ahead, it is hard to see the United States falling behind many countries other than China and, perhaps, India; the EU already exceeds U.S. GDP, but its future as a foreign policy making institution remains in some doubt. And yet the UK, the EU, Japan, China, and others have played a significant, if not leading, role in the institutionalization of the liberal international order over the past six decades. This suggests that even if China, India, and the EU surpass the U.S. as engines of the global economy, the U.S. will retain significant influence over the structure of international society.The question then becomes what to do with that influence. One part of the answer lays in institutionalization. Tightening the constraints imposed by multilateral institutions has long been a strategy for managing relative decline; it locks in particular arrangements negotiated from a position of strength. But deeper institutionalization seems to be a bad bet given the rising, transnational populist wave, and in any case every institution that can be made is one that can be broken.A second part involves recognition of and full accounting with the growing power of China. The United States will not long be able to dictate terms at China’s 12-mile limit, regardless of the number of FONOPs it sails or the lethality of its stealth fighters. This hardly means that Washington needs to concede every element of China’s foreign policy program, but it does suggest that the U.S. needs to consider a posture of strategic modesty. This sounds easy, but the U.S. foreign policy establishment is allergic to thinking about an American role not built upon a foundation of hegemony.Either way, the United States needs to rethink how it approaches international order; for the first time since the 19th century, it will soon face a situation in which it cannot assume even a “first among equals” position in determining the nature of the international order. This need not be a disaster, but it does require careful strategic thought as to how to bring means and ends together.
The question then becomes what to do with that influence. One part of the answer lays in institutionalization. Tightening the constraints imposed by multilateral institutions has long been a strategy for managing relative decline; it locks in particular arrangements negotiated from a position of strength. But deeper institutionalization seems to be a bad bet given the rising, transnational populist wave, and in any case every institution that can be made is one that can be broken.
A second part involves recognition of and full accounting with the growing power of China. The United States will not long be able to dictate terms at China’s 12-mile limit, regardless of the number of FONOPs it sails or the lethality of its stealth fighters. This hardly means that Washington needs to concede every element of China’s foreign policy program, but it does suggest that the U.S. needs to consider a posture of strategic modesty. This sounds easy, but the U.S. foreign policy establishment is allergic to thinking about an American role not built upon a foundation of hegemony.
Either way, the United States needs to rethink how it approaches international order; for the first time since the 19th century, it will soon face a situation in which it cannot assume even a “first among equals” position in determining the nature of the international order. This need not be a disaster, but it does require careful strategic thought as to how to bring means and ends together.
step 1 is obviously "get rid of almost all the experienced staff at the State Department and don't replace any of them"
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 6 March 2018 22:03 (six years ago) link
(that was sarcasm, to be crystal clear)
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 6 March 2018 22:04 (six years ago) link
if 2scoops opens north korea to american business then re-election is his to lose (if he doesn't get indicted that is)
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 18 April 2018 19:57 (five years ago) link
what'll u do if that happens
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2018 19:58 (five years ago) link
depends how south korean pals feel
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 18 April 2018 20:09 (five years ago) link
Another report from the Hudson Institute: https://www.hudson.org/research/14244-countering-russian-kleptocracy
― Frederik B, Thursday, 19 April 2018 10:17 (five years ago) link
It's quite maddening that everything in the report is meant to combat 'Russian kleptocrats', but all the ideas should fit quite well into a leftist anti-oligarchic/kleptocratic foreign policy.
― Frederik B, Thursday, 19 April 2018 12:10 (five years ago) link
It seriously seems as if 'Russian kleptocracy' has been ctrl+f'ed into parts of the report, lol. Fun reading. And join the fight for a "National Counter-Russian Kleptocracy Strategy" or NCRKS. #NCRKS.
― Frederik B, Thursday, 19 April 2018 12:20 (five years ago) link
on US-Cuba relations and the need for a "climate Marshall Plan" (I've only skimmed this and the links as yet)
https://fellowtravelersblog.com/2018/04/17/remove-the-screws-and-build-anew/
― Simon H., Thursday, 19 April 2018 14:37 (five years ago) link
On the bipartisan hawk consensus
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/25/17277530/liberals-neocons-hawks-intervention-international-law-syria-strikes-illegal
― Simon H., Thursday, 26 April 2018 03:22 (five years ago) link
and as gas continues to get more expensive (and guess who profits?) it's curious that QIA is taking charge of that mysterious 19% of carter page's rosneft that was dealt during the transition of power between the obama and trump administrations
https://www.archyworldys.com/qatar-investment-authority-to-acquire-19-stake-in-rosneft/
― reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 13 May 2018 23:13 (five years ago) link
and knowing is half the battle
http://www.newsweek.com/us-military-dispatched-protect-middle-east-embassies-after-trumps-jerusalem-925458
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 15 May 2018 12:57 (five years ago) link
the Trump-Schumer foreign policy
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/21/chuck-schumer-is-the-worst-possible-democratic-leader-on-foreign-policy-at-the-worst-possible-time/
― the ignatius rock of ignorance (Dr Morbius), Monday, 21 May 2018 17:49 (five years ago) link
my pal who knows the deal:
http://inthesetimes.com/features/left_progressive_foreign_policy_platform_russia_china_middle_east.html
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 August 2018 21:12 (five years ago) link
eagerly anticipating tombot's rude evisceration of this
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 August 2018 21:14 (five years ago) link
As someone from a country that has in fact been invaded by Russia for a short while: Please don't withdraw from NATO. At least listen a bit to Europeans before you think it would be progressive and solidaric.
― Frederik B, Thursday, 16 August 2018 21:40 (five years ago) link
Some good ideas, a lot of ideas so naive I can't believe the author thinks they will work. I absolutely would support an arms embargo along the line described in the article, but then it says something like this:
Cutting the United States’ multi-billion dollar arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Turkey and other U.S. allies involved in the Syrian wars would also lend legitimacy to U.S. efforts within those diplomatic processes to press Russia to stop providing arms to the Assad regime.
And... come on now.
― Frederik B, Thursday, 16 August 2018 21:48 (five years ago) link
Even though 'legitimacy' is desirable in both the moral sphere and political sphere, the two spheres have only a very casual, and somewhat accidental, connection.
― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:02 (five years ago) link
Is the objection to the proposal or the stated rationale
― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:06 (five years ago) link
(or both)
― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:08 (five years ago) link
non-sarcastic q: when did russia invade denmark?
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:10 (five years ago) link
Suggesting that Russia would feel any particular pressure to stop arms sales to Assad, if the USA stopped sales to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Turkey, is sort of ludicrous. Putin would bless us for pissing off our erstwhile allies, weakening their ability to interfere in Syria, and he'd continue to strengthen Assad.
― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:20 (five years ago) link
I'll ask Phyllis about this point and report back.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:23 (five years ago) link
not immediately obvious to me how this is necessarily a bad thing ~
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/trump-makes-it-easier-for-the-u-s-to-launch-cyber-attacks.html
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:24 (five years ago) link
lol
― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:30 (five years ago) link
qualmsley you know Trump commands the military too, right
― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:38 (five years ago) link
a ha!
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 16 August 2018 23:13 (five years ago) link
it's fucking retarded
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 16 August 2018 23:48 (five years ago) link
god forbid we have any "interagency" deliberative process to prevent accidentally breaking the fucking internet because some O-7 thinks it would be cool to mess with somebody's power grid
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 16 August 2018 23:51 (five years ago) link
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), 17. august 2018 00:10 (nine hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornholm#Soviet_occupation_(1945–1946)
― Frederik B, Friday, 17 August 2018 07:17 (five years ago) link
― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), 17. august 2018 00:06 (nine hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
The rationale. Instituting a weapons embargo on former allies would be a good idea, and it's refreshing to see someone call for it, instead of just saying 'US out of Yemen, and then it's okay'. But it's a major strategic realignment, and progressives would need to analyze what the fallout would be, and what the next step should be. Because if the countries then just buy Russian weapons, then what has been achieved? It hasn't saved a single live in Syria or Yemen.
― Frederik B, Friday, 17 August 2018 07:30 (five years ago) link
i don't think the US should withdraw from NATO but tbh an island being bombed by the soviets at a time when your country was occupied by the nazis is not terribly relevant to the issue
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 17 August 2018 08:02 (five years ago) link
That's wrong on so many levels. To begin with, the bombings happened after the nazis surrendered, and... Oh, why am I wasting time on this, thanks for explaining to me why my history is irrelevant.
― Frederik B, Friday, 17 August 2018 08:38 (five years ago) link
― El Tomboto, Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:48 PM (four days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
cmon man, use better words
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 20 August 2018 21:14 (five years ago) link
OK it’s very stupid
― El Tomboto, Monday, 20 August 2018 21:37 (five years ago) link
(still ableist if we're being real)
― 21st savagery fox (m bison), Tuesday, 21 August 2018 11:25 (five years ago) link
It’s poorly thought out
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 21 August 2018 11:32 (five years ago) link
Bornholm island in 1945 = not relevant here
― Neuer write off the germans (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 21 August 2018 11:36 (five years ago) link
on the US and Syria
Our focus on U.S. obligations to address civilian costs is motivated by deep concern about the suffering in Syria and its destabilizing effects across the region. But our policy suggestions about refugee assistance or reconstruction aid are not driven by a conception of Syrians as simple victims. Rather we highlight these U.S. responsibilities because our view is that the United States is partly culpable for the catastrophic events and so owes a palpable debt to Syria. Again, one of the great problems with military intervention today is the degree to which external powers generally—and not simply the United States—enjoy absolute impunity for their actions. One could certainly make similar policy claims about Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Gulf States, and Israel with respect to their actions in Syria. Writing from the United States, we underscore the necessity of U.S. assistance because it is a clear way to make amends for the costs of U.S. policy.At the same time, we want to know how best to ensure that Syrians actually control their own political future. There is no obvious path, given the complexity of the conflict, the number of domestic and external interveners, and the sheer violence. But among the variety of available choices, the best way to preserve some degree of local control is to create the political space for the various groups on the ground to negotiate a transition through an inclusive diplomatic process. This would require an initial move by the United States and all the external interveners to cease hostilities on all sides, thus creating the conditions for meaningful discussion.We agree, however, that even this may fail—and failure is certainly more likely than in 2012 when Assad’s position was far weaker. But we believe it remains the only viable path toward both peace and local political control. Some critics will say that we have a naïve and utopian faith in diplomacy. We see instead an assessment of what remains the most morally and politically acceptable choice among a number of difficult options.
At the same time, we want to know how best to ensure that Syrians actually control their own political future. There is no obvious path, given the complexity of the conflict, the number of domestic and external interveners, and the sheer violence. But among the variety of available choices, the best way to preserve some degree of local control is to create the political space for the various groups on the ground to negotiate a transition through an inclusive diplomatic process. This would require an initial move by the United States and all the external interveners to cease hostilities on all sides, thus creating the conditions for meaningful discussion.
We agree, however, that even this may fail—and failure is certainly more likely than in 2012 when Assad’s position was far weaker. But we believe it remains the only viable path toward both peace and local political control. Some critics will say that we have a naïve and utopian faith in diplomacy. We see instead an assessment of what remains the most morally and politically acceptable choice among a number of difficult options.
https://bostonreview.net/war-security/asli-u-bali-aziz-rana-us-debt-syria
― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Saturday, 8 September 2018 18:04 (five years ago) link
the United States is partly culpable for the catastrophic events and so owes a palpable debt to Syria.
See: Hungarian Revolution, 1956. Similar situation. US encouraged Hungarians to revolt, then did nothing when the Soviet tanks rolled in.
we believe it remains the only viable path toward both peace and local political control.
Author is correct, except to say it "may" fail; it would fail, absolutely guaranteed. We have zero leverage with Assad. His internal opponents are either Islamists or abysmally weak. Getting Israel involved would be a disaster. The Kurds don't care about Assad. We're even on the outs with Turkey right now. Our offering to broker a negotiation would be contemptuously rebuffed or else just ignored. Even talking/writing about such a plan is beyond grasping at straws.
― A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 8 September 2018 18:45 (five years ago) link
Anybody read this? https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-09-04/toward-neo-progressive-foreign-policy
― Paleo Weltschmerz (El Tomboto), Sunday, 9 September 2018 13:48 (five years ago) link
Can't read it. But the beginning seems quite good.
― Frederik B, Sunday, 9 September 2018 16:12 (five years ago) link
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/11/left-national-security-foreign-policy-donald-trump-219744
― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Tuesday, 11 September 2018 22:07 (five years ago) link
Joint U.S.-Russian raids to kill top terrorists. Teamwork between an American government agency and a sanctioned Russian fund. Moscow pouring money into the Midwest.
These are just a few of the ideas the head of a Russian sovereign wealth fund touched on during his meeting with former Blackwater head Erik Prince in the Seychelles, just weeks before President Donald Trump’s inauguration
https://www.thedailybeast.com/revealed-what-erik-prince-and-moscows-money-man-discussed-in-that-infamous-seychelles-meeting
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 26 September 2018 23:36 (five years ago) link
new FP must of course be built around climate change
g'luck
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 September 2018 00:59 (five years ago) link
it should definitely have a strong pillar around that, specifically on multilateral agreements to reduce carbon emissions, yes
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 27 September 2018 01:28 (five years ago) link
That's putting it mildly
I don't think that's quite the FP vision we had in mind qualms :)
― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Thursday, 27 September 2018 01:40 (five years ago) link
concerned about CC-refugee policy, if such a thing can remain stable in the likely hell to come
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 27 September 2018 01:48 (five years ago) link