Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Politics motivated Hillary Clinton’s flip-flop on Obama’s massive Pacific trade deal. Here’s how she can find her way back to supporting it.
Comments
Rather than posting multiple articles separately I will instead dump several here. They all have to do with Hillary as President.
We have been at war for the near entirety of two terms of two different Presidents in a row. It is far past the time when that can be blamed entirely on George Bush. I don’t expect that anyone will be surprised when I say that I am of the opinion that foreign policy should be a much bigger issue than it has been so far in this election cycle. We now know who we will very likely, almost certainly, get for our next POTUS. If Hillary oversees four or eight more years of similar policy choices, as there is every reason to expect she will, there is no excuse for anyone to be surprised. We will be getting what we have every reason to expect. We will be getting what is in a very large part exactly what we voted for whether we consciously weighed that prospect in that regard or not. Whether we resolve domestic bathroom crises or not. Whether we can afford it or not. Whether we care or not. Articles that speak well to this subject are here, here, here, here and here.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 2:04pm
Would you have invaded Afghanistan post-9/11?
Not knowing in Sept 2002 whether Hussein had biochemical weapons, how would you have dealt with the uncertainty?
If you inherited Iraq and Afghanistan in Jan 2009, how would you have handled the fighting factions and winding down there?
How would you have reacted to Qaddafi threats to wipe out the civilian Arab Spring protesters in Benghazi?
What's your thought on perceived success by Obama in rolling back ISIS in Syria/Iraq the kast 6 months, and should he have helped local fighters or abandoned the field?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 2:24pm
Based on what I knew, or thought I knew, I did not oppose invading Afghanistan. I did fairly soon come to think that it was time to get out. I did not believe that our's would be the first of many attempts over centuries of recorded history to successfully control Afghanistan and bend it to our will.
I would have left inspectors in Iraq rather than pulling them out and saying they were kicked out. I would not have lied over and over to the American people and when the inspectors continued to not find any WMD. I would not have shifted to a new excuse and bolster it with lies.
If I had inherited the mess Obama did I would have used whatever diplomatic/economic leverage I had to remove as many weapons from those countries as I could and to prevent their replacement and then I would have pulled out all of our military. I know that action would have produced a lot of ugly pictures but fewer by far, I think, than the actions that were taken have.
I believe the Qaddafi threats were overblown, again to fit a narrative designed as a justification. I would not have lied to Russia and China about the intended use of the no-fly zone in order to get their UN vote and then actually become the rebel's air force and if the insurgency Qaddafi faced did come to the same end I would not have let myself get caught laughing maniacally over the fact that he had been anally raped with a knife and then murdered.
I do not support the US trying to overthrow the democratically elected leader of a sovereign country. I believe the Russians have been most responsible for rolling back ISIS to the extent that it has happened recently. For one thing, they attacked the obvious money source that couldn't have existed without the knowledge of our military and yet had been left to operate in the open.
If all my alternate answers to the actions taken are all incorrect does that in any way make the actions that were taken the right actions to have been taken? What are your answers to the same questions? Do you expect Hillary to be a good CiC?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 3:32pm
Dog just ate homework, but while I agree in some ways, too optimistic about how things go without us for my tastes - I would avoid staying as much as possible -, and little appreciation for their downsides and who fills vacuums - e.g. Chechnya is Putin's model, pre- and post-war strongman.
I'm glad you see Hillary pushing for inspectors as necessary, though maybe you miss ssome lack of cooperation for why her husband pulled them out. Not sure if you really believe Obama's been enabling ISIS by not taking on its money.
" I know that action would have produced a lot of ugly pictures but fewer by far, I think, than the actions that were taken have." - that bit of deadpan understated optimism in the face of Sunni-Shiite fighting iand dying/atrocity is probably a lot more cold-blooded than Hillary's qaqqle over Qaddafi. Yes, a lot of anal rape.
I expect Hillary to be a better CIC - a bit riskier than Obama, but I also expect no American will make you happy.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 6:57pm
There often seems to be this idea that if America just stayed out these third rate countries with a third tier military would just work it out by themselves. If the first tier powers withdraw that just leaves the ground open for the second tier powers to work their will. Bad as our interventions with other first tier powers have sometimes been I'm even less confident in the good will of the second tier powers that would likely take our place.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 7:03pm
Ocean, would you be willing to take a shot at answering those questions too that PP asked of me?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 7:29pm
No, but I'll try to address the question you asked me. PP and a couple of others here like to make these multipoint posts when each of those points need their own blog with their own discussion. For example I'm not interested in how a person answers the question, " Would you have invaded Afghanistan post-9/11? " I'm only interested in how they defend their answer when challenged. What are the arguments and counter arguments. I don't really like these broad based discussions. I think it ignores the complexity of each individual situation and leaves out the nuance. I prefer a more limited and deeper debate
I think the answers require a level of nuance that won't be approached when there are several somewhat related but separate questions. And there will be little debate on each individual topic. I would have "invaded" Afghanistan but in a much different way than Bush. There's your simple answer to the first question. It doesn't really tell you much. What does one actually mean by "invade" And how would I have done it differently? That requires another paragraph or two.
But you know we did invade in the way Bush decided to. I'm not too inclined to rehash that. What would have happened if we had sustained that invasion instead of moving resources long before that fight was over to invade Iraq? That's a whole nother part of the discussion. And it's also another fact on the ground. Bush did move resources to Iraq.
So you see, with my personal preferences for debate topics and my time constraints I don't want to discuss whether we should have invaded Afghanistan at all and definitely not in the context of several other questions. The question that interests me more is how Obama handled the mess he was given. Not whether we should have gotten into this mess in the first place. And how one thinks that strategy should or should not be changed in the future.
Gotta go, I might add a few more thoughts later tonight.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 8:40pm
Good points.
by moat on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 8:50pm
Whether any CiC would make me happy is irrelevant to what we can expect Hillary to do as CiC. My state of mind and any action I could possibly take will have zero influence on national affairs, but make it about me if you wish. Sorry 'bout your dog but when you get the time and if you get the inclination I would still like to see your answers to your questions.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 7:27pm
Not quite true - you're basing your vote and trying to influence others based on Hillary's 2002 vote and 4 years as SoS as enabling 15 years of unneeded Mideast military intervention, presumably better done with Bernie in charge and more local self-determinism (perhaps with Russian guidance).
Similar to Mozart's response to the Emperor, which (Democratic initiated) notes should we remove?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/19/2016 - 5:12am
I am glad you brought up these matters. I agree with the statement made in your post that foreign policy has not really been discussed in this election cycle. I would like to give my own response to PP's questions as a point of contrast:
I opposed the Afghanistan invasion because of the way it was carried out. Instead of focusing on the Al Qaeda elements, the demand that the Taliban deliver them was a device that was convenient for the purposes of justifying the invasion but had many consequences that we are still dealing with and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
I agree with your paragraph concerning Iraq but would like to point out that much of the impulse to go there was a result of the bad things left hanging from the first "Gulf War" Top of my list: Leaving the Shiites out to die after suggesting we could help them if they helped us. They got the wrong end of that stick.
Sovereignty issues are important. I think we need to square up to those issues and address them. On the other hand, I don't think there is a golden past where we used to be good and then became less good. I cannot accept responsibility for our past while making it into something it never was at the same time. In my mind, this issue is one of the most important ones.
The Russians are part of the problem in Syria, not the solution. The same may be said for the US and has been said. I am in not in a position to judge such a complicated situation that is the result of generations of past situations but I am willing to argue all day and night that the Russians are not the adults in the room. This is how they played Vietnam.
History: is it a place or a story?
by moat on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 7:42pm
Thanks moat. Regarding Russia my only assertion I made here and now is that they have been more affective in recent months at "rolling back ISIS" in Syria than has been the actions of the U.S. for a couple years and I made that assertion because PP's question premised a perception that to the extent that there has been some military success it is an Obama success.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 7:58pm
Understood, you are not attempting to explain the situation in Syria.
I guess we are back at the topic of what separates tactics and strategy we have discussed previously. Figuring out that sort of thing is what a Commander in Cheif does. I hope the next one does not screw that work up too badly.
by moat on Sat, 06/18/2016 - 8:31pm
There's a question whether Russia's been focused on ISIS or rebels, and its altercation with Turkey meanwhile was not helpful.
Russia was helpful in getting Syria to relinquish chemical weapons - perhaps to mischievously pull our tail a bit, but still a win for all.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/19/2016 - 5:17am