Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 65

On June 22 2017 17:30 VanDerMeyde wrote: The muslim countries are all SHIT because they made REALLY BAD DECISIONS and they keep repeating them over and over... Instead of focusing on starting to make good decisions, they focus on worshipping a 1400-old book and even base their legal system on this book (Sharia laws). God will make the decisions for them, and you see how that went...

You can't entirely blame this on 'muslim countries'. The fact is USA and the UK both supported and still support some of the most fanatic and violent elements in the middle east. Like, for example in saudi arabia, where most of the financing for violent islamic fundamentalism comes from. You can't blame it on muslim culture entirely because its mainly the power systems within those countries who force it on their own population. There are dissidents in saudi arabia who argue for liberalism, even when faced with the threat of execution or whipping.

Let's begin with this, a thing I 've stated a bunch of times already. What is globally good, does not mean it will benefit the whole population of the world. Its like that absolutely everywhere. I can give you two quite recent developments:
A) The whole situation in the UK from Brexit up to now. While every Brexit supporter was going " see? this isn't going that bad " after the whole economy balanced out after the initial downswing right after the Brexit, a year later all indicators show that the economy is going down steadily. Not super fast but surely going steadily down and will continue to do so. If Brexit referendum were held today, I strongly doubt that the results will be anywhere near close to what they were the last time.

Consider that the UK is one of the most advanced nations worldwide, a group of about 10 people still managed to run through a propaganda which will fuck the majority of the country.

B) Turkey was as well one of the most advanced countries worldwide, religion might still have been a decent chunk of the society's life but things now are going down the spiral quite quickly. They just announced that there will be a new policy which will enable regions with over 5,000 people to open up a religious school. Similar policies were started exactly at the start of the Erdogan's first government. In 2002 there were 70k students in religious high schools, he came into power 2003 and currently, there are around 600k. With recent policy that number will exponentially increase.


So what does any of this mean regarding the topic at hand?

In order to understand politics and " really bad decisions" you cannot view them from a "moral" perspective. The USA is probably the nation that has made the worst foreign policy decisions on a historical note, well Russia is definitely right there with them as well. Politicans will always do what they find to be the best solution for them and their future results in the polls

At which point do we start excusing nations for they hostility? Just because you are the world leader certainly doesn't entitle you to do whatever the fuck you want from a moral point. How many people did they kill in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yemen ... the list can literally go on with another 50 other countries for the past 150-200 years. They always try to force a change in the ideology of a nation, end up killing thousands, losing thousands and completely demolish the nation in such a manner that it takes another 20 years for it to stabilize. Yet you wont see them as terrorist ever, will you? If you have an objective opinion it would turn out that the values you hold on to dearest, which are represented by that very country are the ones that have killed the most people for no reason at all.

How liberal is too liberal as well? LGBT movement defends the rights of a community which already has equal rights. Originally it made sense, but the gay parades are something to laugh at in this point of time in western countries. In a matter of fact the whole ideology is becoming counter productive and generates weak individuals which are unable to deal with basic social situations. I don't mean the LGBT movement specifically regarding the latter, but most liberal movements as a whole. Yet all of them are a product of developed societies.


Where do you draw the line? Sure extremists want to spread Sharia, destroy civilization, use women as tools for impregnation and blah blah blah and yes they kill a lot of people, yet if you compare the numbers it wont be even close. Not to mention that the policy ran by the USA only empowers the latter movements even more. So basically the USA would have to take the guilt for all of their actions plus take a portion of the guilt for creating movements like Al Quieda and ISIS.

That is simple hypocrisy. Neither of those things are right, and I will NOT support either of them. However I won't let people bash on to muslims while they completely disregard the other side of the coin which is far uglier. Just look at the american presidents the past 40 years. All of them are failures. Obama is probably the only one that managed to do good, considering the state the country was in during his government, yet he deployed thousands of killer drones in the Mid East and basically created ISIS.

I'm heavily focusing on the USA because they are the one that dictate the global politics, however UK's and France's policies are not much better either. China s probably running the smartest policy on a global note, they still do quite unmoral shit, but their foreign policy mainly bases itself on buying vital sectors in other countries like energy. In a bunch of years they won't have to go to war with someone, they will just have to threaten them with a cut of energy resources, exactly like Russia does to the EU every autumn.

You could simply forget about justice or morals tbh.

The main reason for focusing on your own nations crime's is because your responsible for them. When people focus on the crimes of other nations and cultures but ignore their own, they are hypocrites. That's the moral argument for focusing on the wests crimes rather than islamic fundamentalism, its extremely easy to understand but it is widely ignored.

The west don't "support" these shitty countries with their savage cultures, people are mislabelling it like some approval of the west to support calling them hypocrites. Politics is totally different, there's the economy and a countries sovereignity. If the west only stood by or didn't support nor admonish any government since post world war 2 the world would be back in the dark ages. The best you can hope for if you are "big brother" to the world is exactly what the west is, selective interventionism. Thank the US later for sleeping better at night for the past 50 years, you're welcome. Imagine Russia or China running the world, that would be much more fun right? The reality is, Uncle Sam is a douchebag, but he is the best we got or this whole damn place falls apart within a decade.

Both of you support interventionism which has endless amounts of times proved itself to be ineffective and to cause the exact opposite results of what its desired effects were original. You are basically western society extremists.

On June 26 2017 13:07 VanDerMeyde wrote: We are mostly trying to help out these countries and have been for decades. But it's extremly hard to push religious lunatics in the right direction. And yes we did take out some local Adolf Hitlers that were gassing their own population... I dont see anything wrong in that. The problem is there are often no "good" side to support

There is no evidence to suggest that the western nations have been trying to help the poor nations, you need to show that. You are referring to saddam hussein, which the US government supplied with chemical weapons in the 1980's. The US gave him arms, all of western europe supported him too, and the mayor of paris called him a noble man. ( You can read that in Robert Fisks journalistic reports, he reported the iraq-iran war around that time and lived there). But there are even worse people that the west supported, like Pol Pot (1978-90) and Suharto (1965-1999).

There are plenty of good sides and lesser evils that could be in power simply if the US did nothing. Sukarno was easily a lesser evil to Suharto, Mossedegah was a lesser evil to the Shah. The US chose murderous tyrants over people that had public support, because those people wanted the nations resources under their own control.

Whaam is also wrong, anyone that studies economic history will know that the countries that follow the advice of the IMF, world bank, and the US government, get turned into the third world. the countries that didn't, like the asian tiger economies, (south korea, taiwan), free themselves from poverty. It was similar 200 years ago as well, america and japan escaped british imperialism so they were able to develop.

You are able to amuse me yet again. The part which the USA played during WW2 is greatly exaggerated. As always, winners end up writing history. As much as I despise Russia, they are the true saviors, except they don't have the Hollywood movies to prove it with.

Also, the term interventionism is not exactly to be used when it comes to a war on that huge scale. Failures? Just in the past 50 years you have Vietnam, Libya (twice), Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia - all of those are complete failures which accomplished absolutely nothing but to destabilize the regions and steal the natural resources in some cases.

If you want a more specific example of how the USA gives zero fucks and only does shit for the benefits of its own politicians - Saddam Hussein was considered a close friend to the USA up until the point when Israel went into Lebanon for no reason at all, so Saddam basically told the USA " listen, they either go back or we go in Kuwait " at which point the USA ran a major propaganda in their media to make Saddam look like a savage.

The USA has been doing the shadiest shit for the past 100 years, they have literally discussed terrorism acts upon their own people to run their propaganda properly, they have trained supposedly the most notorious terrorist of all times in the face of Osama Bin Laden, which they supposedly found and killed, even though there is absolutely zero evidence to show, after all they did blame him for a terrorist act which was done internally. Their excuse was that his body was basically turned into a cheese. How does that matter, honestly? Saddam's hanging has an official tape released. Is that any less savage? Obviously I can't prove any of that, however Edward Snowden claims that to be true and I'd take the word of that guy over any American involved in politics any day of the week.

Everything a government does should be questioned and should be accompanied with evidence of the said thing, otherwise it is most likely a lie.

I think intervention in 1944 against the nazi's was justified, morally, but i doubt it was done for moral reasons. From a strategic perspective, it was a good idea to wait until 1944 to intervene as it allowed America to emerge as having total power over most of the world, as all other nations had suffered major losses.

Libya was certainly not with good intention. A bombing could have easily been avoided as gaddafi wanted to make a deal to give up power but be given protection by the US, (this was when it was clear he couldn't maintain authority any longer).

Khadaffi was gone either way. As always the USA just dropped the bomb for no reason at all. Which brings me back to WW2 and the completely pointless usage of nuclear bombs.

Their position post WW2 is what made the USA what it is today. While their military capacity could have possibly been equal to Russia's they had the finances needed to "help" other nations while taking control. I'd still much prefer it compared to Russia's control, considering I am observing the results of Russia's political intervention. At least when something in the western world is corrupt they have the decency to cover that shit up and not shove it in people's faces everywhere

VanDerMeyde you are being absolutely naive when you talk about foreign policy and invasion of sovereign countries, in fact I dont even think you actually believe that bullshit.

You know perfectly well they are geopolitical moves, from stopping the growth of communism in Vietnam and Korea to stopping Russian influence and controlling crude in the middle east, these actions left countries in ruins and ignorance, poverty and hatred are breeding grounds for terrorism, obviously all the countries the US have attacked in the past decades are much more likely to attack the west than they were before.

Come on... this is stupid, leave those pathetic gullible arguments that the US is killing baddies to ignorant rednecks, you know better than that.

You continue with your ignorant approach. The USA has NEVER intervened with the idea to SUPPORT a "GOOD" side. There is no way you believe that. A nation would involve itself in a war for two reasons:

A) Has direct benefit out of it
B) No other alternative and immediate danger to its existence

The USA has used reason B in front of the population, which is quite absurd, in order to gain reason A. The only instance in which they went into war because of B is probably WW2 as Germany was quite close to developing the nuclear bomb themselves and as far as i remember, if Russia didn't manage to push em out and the USA didn't go in Europe, they would've had enough time to seize absolute control. There is no doubt that Hitler would've directly used the bomb.

On June 27 2017 12:27 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On June 27 2017 02:57 Baalim wrote: VanDerMeyde you are being absolutely naive when you talk about foreign policy and invasion of sovereign countries, in fact I dont even think you actually believe that bullshit. You know perfectly well they are geopolitical moves, from stopping the growth of communism in Vietnam and Korea to stopping Russian influence and controlling crude in the middle east, these actions left countries in ruins and ignorance, poverty and hatred are breeding grounds for terrorism, obviously all the countries the US have attacked in the past decades are much more likely to attack the west than they were before. Come on... this is stupid, leave those pathetic gullible arguments that the US is killing baddies to ignorant rednecks, you know better than that. Bombing women and children in Vietnam with napalm is totally different than NATO/USA wanting to stop religious lunatics from gassing their own population.. I dont really get the point "yeah but they bought weapons from USA". Like, everyone buy weapons from almost everyone all the time.. I don't get why USA should be responsible for maniacs being crazy and killing their own population with those weapons unless it was somehow predictable they would do that. Its their own bad choice (again). The real problem for me is intervention when there is no good side to support in the conflict... As often is the case in the middle east / islamic countries.

There are good sides to support, and there are a lot of opportunities. For example the US had the opportunity to support a public revolt against saddam in the early 1990's, but chose not to. As for islamic fundamentalists, you might find this hard to beleive, but it is actually true: The mujaheddin were taken to america, visited the whitehouse, and taken to shopping malls where they could buy what they want (in the 1980's/90's). These were people that were employed as a part of a trap to lure Russia into an unwinnable war in afghanistan.Yesterdays freedom fighters became todays terrorists.

The US/NATO and formerly Britain have always supported dictators who gassed their own population. Winston Churchill actually argued in favour of gassing kurds about 60 years before it happened, quoting him, he said that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes… it would spread a lively terror".

Weapons aid by American government is highly selective actually. It flows to whoever is aligned with their interests. Again, your just evading the argument, saying things that are empirically untennable, and believing a doctrine of humanitarian intervention that is easily refuted by a simple comparative study.

Also the justification for selling weapon is pathetic... we do it because everyone else does, what in the fuck is that kind of moral stance?

Saudi Arabia is a supporter of the muslim brotherhood and the US sells billions in weapons every year, do you seriously believe this make sense, to arm extremists to later intervene because you are "good"? This is such a childish worldview