Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, downzy said:

As for Obama's drone policy, that's something I don't have a problem 

Thats really all that one needs to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, soon said:

I think you'll find that armed insurrection in the US context has occurred primarily in the forms of sabotage, expropriation, underground building of above ground popular movements and early stage vanguardism.

I think you'd also find that the last wave of insurgency in the US ended as recently as 1985. Not really so funny.

Oh there will always be sporadic nut jobs that go on crazy wars against the government. Waco springs to mind. The unabomber. And yes, this is not funny. 

What we were talking about was a revolution. Of vegans and communists. Against the election of Biden. And that is funny. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soon said:

Thats really all that one needs to hear.

That's what I figured.  Make unsubstantiated claims that are not born out by facts and when get called out on it you respond in a non-serious way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, downzy said:

That's what I figured.  Make unsubstantiated claims that are not born out by facts and when get called out on it you respond in a non-serious way.

You dont have time to try and pretend Ive deflected... you have two jobs.

And, just real quick, supporting a drone program that targets US citizens and is okay killing 10 innocents per 1 target is first and foremost disgusting and disqualifies you from serious discourse. But to my point the program is of course just a high tech version of neo colonial expansionism. Expansionism that Biden supports. Or did Maddow not cover that?

So, when you say silly things people arent interested in hearing more of your thoughts. Thats not deflection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

You dont have time to try and pretend Ive deflected... you have two jobs.

And, just real quick, supporting a drone program that targets US citizens and is okay killing 10 innocents per 1 target is first and foremost disgusting and disqualifies you from serious discourse. But to my point the program is of course just a high tech version of neo colonial expansionism. Expansionism that Biden supports. Or did Maddow not cover that?

So, when you say silly things people arent interested in hearing more of your thoughts. Thats not deflection.

It's not deflection to waste time on opinions that are unrelated to the topic being discussed.  

What is deflective is to label someone as such without having the slightest understanding of who they really are or their track record.  And when called out on it, you deflect by ignoring everything said and hang your hat on a personal dig, as though you're in any position to decide who deserves to be taken seriously.  

Who the fuck are you to decide that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Oh there will always be sporadic nut jobs that go on crazy wars against the government. Waco springs to mind. The unabomber. And yes, this is not funny. 

What we were talking about was a revolution. Of vegans and communists. Against the election of Biden. And that is funny. 

I made no mention of revolution or communists in my initial post and have only mentioned vanguardism since. This is all a mischaracterization.

There was at least one bombing a day in North America every single day from 1965-1975. And then there was Earth First not too long ago. FFFS in my home town bombed a bank in 2010. Shit loads of well organized people. The notion they operate under is to identify or create a rupture in the social fabric. My only point is that a pro business prez with more than a few conservative votes on his record and the increasing surveillance state, ties with the climate timeline builds a situation wherein the internal logic of insurrectionaries says its time to act.

If you want to discuss communism on the other hand, you can do it with the commie you hired to mod your forum :P:ph34r:

 

4 minutes ago, downzy said:

Who the fuck are you to decide that?  

The person you said that you support the US drone program to, thats who. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

I made no mention of revolution or communists in my initial post and have only mentioned vanguardism since. This is all a mischaracterization.

You talked about the time for "peaceful revolution" being over. It is only natural to interpret this as implying that it is now time for "armed revolution", since these terms go hand-in-hand. And I did find the image of armed revolution because of Biden funny.

But yes, of course any decisions that ruffles the feathers of extremists can result in domestic terrorism and pocketed insurgence. Whether that is on the far left or right, or from extreme environmentalists. And that is scary. I do think you are exaggerating this, though. I find it hard to believe Biden will be the feather that brakes the camel's back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's lots of reasons to oppose someone like Biden.  He's not my first pick to either beat Trump or to take the office.

But those on the left that want to paint him as a war monger need to have their heads a shake.  While he's no pacifist, neither is he a neoliberal who wants to impose "America" on the rest of the world through military might.  

And he's not much different than the rest of the field in that respect.  I hear support for people like Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.  But both are on record of continuing the drone program.  While Tulsi's campaign is no longer accepting donations from the defence industry, that didn't stop her from accepting donations for four years while she was a sitting Congresswoman.  She's also suggested she would be open to expanding the drone program, and has even hinted she'd be fine with torture if she thought it was necessary.  She was also a strident critic of the U.S. - Iran nuclear deal.  Forget about talking to Assad, she's on record supporting Russia's years long bombing campaign in Syria because of Russia's alliance with Syria.  When Russia ramped things up in Syra, here is what she wrote: "“Bad enough U.S. has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.”  She followed that tweet with this one the following day: “Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did.”  Nevermind Russians weren't really bombing terrorists.  They were really bombing opposition forces trying to depose Assad.  

Like Trump, she believes in putting America first regardless of the consequences internationally.   All the while she opposes any form of intervention, even if war criminals are slaughtering civilians.  Nice.

So people can slag Biden all they want.  But it's not as though the candidates who American isolationists support are all that different.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You talked about the time for "peaceful revolution" being over. It is only natural to interpret this as implying that it is now time for "armed revolution", since these terms go hand-in-hand. And I did find the image of armed revolution because of Biden funny.

Right, thats a far point about how I said "peaceful revolution" and I would characterize bombings and expropriations as 'revolutionary activities' but no one with the wherewithal to build bombs and all that jazz would believe that revolution is possible in todays America. So 'bringing the war home' would quit likely be the tactic they take to.

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But yes, of course any decisions that ruffles the feathers of extremists can result in domestic terrorism and pocketed insurgence. Whether that is on the far left or right, or from extreme environmentalists. And that is scary. I do think you are exaggerating this, though. I find it hard to believe Biden will be the feather that brakes the camel's back. 

Yeah, its scary! They might bomb the police station while am in a holding cell! :lol:

To be clear, I am not talking Biden only. That would be funny. Im trying to unpack a vortex of conditions that very well could produce insurrection. The climate timeline/corprotate pouts/giving up on the electorate/rapidly expanding surveillance state are the conditions that I am point to. And I sure hope Im wrong! Climate and giving up on the electorate are very real anxieties today, though.

I know an old panther who killed a cop and then hijacked a plane and flew to Cuba where he lived until he negotiated his return to the US in exchange for a tiny sentence. Ive been to the range with him, if you can believe that he can still legally own guns!!?!?!. That is the kind of stuff that todays insurrectionaries dont have the luxury of with the surveillance state being so advanced in a post 9/11 world. Theres a culture of 'we have to act while we still can.' 

I think I am guilty of speaking as an 'insider' if you will and using shorthand/ovely brief references. I have been trying and failing to learn to speak as the average political junky. Like a normal. Maybe soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drones need to be a national discussion. Trump's drone usage is maybe the most abhorrent thing about his presidency - yet its rarely (if ever) mentioned. He has far exceeded Obama (who was an abuser himself) and has shown a flagrant disregard for civilian casualties. He even nixed a policy that made you publicly disclose the casualties of any drone strike.

Edited by -W.A.R-
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

Drones need to be a national discussion. Trump's drone usage is maybe the most abhorrent thing about his presidency - yet its rarely (if ever) mentioned. He has far exceeded Obama (who was an abuser himself) and has shown a flagrant disregard for civilian casualties. He even nixed a policy that made you publicly disclose the casualties of any drone strike.

Don't forget the support of the Saudi's in their barbaric war in Yemen. He hardly gets any criticism in the mainstream media for that either! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, downzy said:

Like Trump, she believes in putting America first regardless of the consequences internationally.   All the while she opposes any form of intervention, even if war criminals are slaughtering civilians.  Nice.

So people can slag Biden all they want.  But it's not as though the candidates who American isolationists support are all that different.  

But wait a minute. Why are the opposition forces any better than Assad? If you fund them you are indirectly or directly helping ISIS and Al-Quada, and it's not like we know who the hell the rest of them really are either. Tulsi proposed stopping funding these groups, and rightfully so. She's also record that there needs to be further investigation of those Assad 'gas attacks.'

In case anyone's interested, they still don't know what exactly happened during those alleged Assad gas attacks.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/27/the-evidence-we-were-never-meant-to-see-about-the-douma-gas-attack/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got people voting Trump on one side and people believing that Corporate Dems will magically stop obeying their corporate overlords on the other :lol::facepalm:

We see a rise in children addressing the major issues of the times. Reading my above sentence, it should come as no surprise that children need to take care of shit for themselves.

Asri6dy.jpg

xvW83TR.jpg

So lets follow their lead on Biden and all the corporate dinosaurs and

tTFhmf3.png?1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

But wait a minute. Why are the opposition forces any better than Assad? If you fund them you are indirectly or directly helping ISIS and Al-Quada, and it's not like we know who the hell the rest of them really are either. Tulsi proposed stopping funding these groups, and rightfully so. She's also record that there needs to be further investigation of those Assad 'gas attacks.'

In case anyone's interested, they still don't know what exactly happened during those alleged Assad gas attacks.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/27/the-evidence-we-were-never-meant-to-see-about-the-douma-gas-attack/

Because the opposition forces aren't a monolith and are made up of citizens and military who oppose Assaud's autocratic control of the country.  And that's a false dichotomy you're creating.  Supporting people who wish to rid Assaud isn't tacit support for ISIS or Al-Qaeda.  And we do know who many of the groups fighting to Assaud are and what they represent.

Your link addresses the attacks in Douma in 2018, but nothing about the initial gas attacks in Ghouta in August of 2013.  Sure, anything is possible.  But collected evidence by UN inspectors at the time makes it almost certain that the attack was launched by Assad forces:

However, by examining the debris field and impact area where the rockets struck in Muadhamiya and Ein Tarma, the inspectors found "sufficient evidence" to calculate azimuths, or angular measurements, that allow their trajectories to be determined "with a sufficient degree of accuracy".

When plotted on a map, the trajectories converge on a site that Human Rights Watch said was a large military base on Mount Qassioun that is home to the Republican Guard 104th Brigade.

Human Rights Watch said the Syrian military was believed to have M-14 rockets, and one of the three warheads produced for them can carry 2.2kg (4.8lb) of sarin. Rebel forces were not believed to possess M-14s nor the associated BM-14 launching system, it added.

The organisation said the 330mm rockets were "of a type not listed in standard, specialised, international or declassified reference materials". However, the rocket type had been documented in a number of other attacks on opposition-held areas in recent months, it noted.

Human Rights Watch said the 330mm rockets would be compatible with the 333mm Falaq-2 launcher produced by Iran, which the Syrian government is known to possess. Videos have emerged appearing to show Syrian troops using Falaq-2 systems to launch similarly adapted rockets. Human Rights Watch said no evidence had been produced showing rebel forces were in possession of the rockets or their associated launchers.

------------------------------------------

Regardless, you're likely going to believe what you want to believe here.  I get that.  But the fact that Tusli, who would have access to these and other reports, are still casting doubt despite the fact that Assad has shown himself to be a brutal leader to his people is a sad statement on her character.  She was fine with the industrial military complex padding her campaign coffers until she decided to run for President and wanted to make a name for herself.  There's a significant percentage of the electorate in the U.S. that seems misguidedly sympathetic towards Putin and Russia.  This seems like a crass play by Gabbard to carve out a niche.  Granted, it won't work.  But I find it more dangerous than sad political opportunism by someone who should know better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, downzy said:

Because the opposition forces aren't a monolith and are made up of citizens and military who oppose Assaud's autocratic control of the country.  And that's a false dichotomy you're creating.  Supporting people who wish to rid Assaud isn't tacit support for ISIS or Al-Qaeda.  And we do know who many of the groups fighting to Assaud are and what they represent.

Your link addresses the attacks in Douma in 2018, but nothing about the initial gas attacks in Ghouta in August of 2013.  Sure, anything is possible.  But collected evidence by UN inspectors at the time makes it almost certain that the attack was launched by Assad forces:

However, by examining the debris field and impact area where the rockets struck in Muadhamiya and Ein Tarma, the inspectors found "sufficient evidence" to calculate azimuths, or angular measurements, that allow their trajectories to be determined "with a sufficient degree of accuracy".

When plotted on a map, the trajectories converge on a site that Human Rights Watch said was a large military base on Mount Qassioun that is home to the Republican Guard 104th Brigade.

Human Rights Watch said the Syrian military was believed to have M-14 rockets, and one of the three warheads produced for them can carry 2.2kg (4.8lb) of sarin. Rebel forces were not believed to possess M-14s nor the associated BM-14 launching system, it added.

The organisation said the 330mm rockets were "of a type not listed in standard, specialised, international or declassified reference materials". However, the rocket type had been documented in a number of other attacks on opposition-held areas in recent months, it noted.

Human Rights Watch said the 330mm rockets would be compatible with the 333mm Falaq-2 launcher produced by Iran, which the Syrian government is known to possess. Videos have emerged appearing to show Syrian troops using Falaq-2 systems to launch similarly adapted rockets. Human Rights Watch said no evidence had been produced showing rebel forces were in possession of the rockets or their associated launchers.

------------------------------------------

Regardless, you're likely going to believe what you want to believe here.  I get that.  But the fact that Tusli, who would have access to these and other reports, are still casting doubt despite the fact that Assad has shown himself to be a brutal leader to his people is a sad statement on her character.  She was fine with the industrial military complex padding her campaign coffers until she decided to run for President and wanted to make a name for herself.  There's a significant percentage of the electorate in the U.S. that seems misguidedly sympathetic towards Putin and Russia.  This seems like a crass play by Gabbard to carve out a niche.  Granted, it won't work.  But I find it more dangerous than sad political opportunism by someone who should know better.  

I haven't researched the 2013 attack so I won't comment. But I do know that the 2018 attack had a dissenting opinion in the OPCW that was deliberately withheld from the public. That's troubling to me. All Tulsi is saying is there there needs to be more investigation, who could be against that?

We have no idea how these 'rebel' groups would govern if given the chance. They have also been accused of war crimes by the same sources you cite, so I have no idea why the hell they deserve any support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

That's troubling to me. All Tulsi is saying is there there needs to be more investigation, who could be against that?

But that's not all she has said on the matter, hasn't she? 

She won't condemn Assad for anything, even the violent crackdown on civilian protestors in 2011 nor his use of chemical weapons in 2013.  Keep in mind she visited Assad after the 2013 attacks, not exactly staying neutral on the matter.  Or do you see it another way?  

Again, she's not an isolationist when it comes to Syria.  She was in full support of Russia's bombing campaign because she believed they were bombing terrorists when it was clear that wasn't the case.  She continues to support Russia action in the area despite its naked ambitions to prop up Assad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, downzy said:

But that's not all she has said on the matter, hasn't she? 

She won't condemn Assad for anything, even the violent crackdown on civilian protestors in 2011 nor his use of chemical weapons in 2013.  Keep in mind she visited Assad after the 2013 attacks, not exactly staying neutral on the matter.  Or do you see it another way?  

Again, she's not an isolationist when it comes to Syria.  She was in full support of Russia's bombing campaign because she believed they were bombing terrorists when it was clear that wasn't the case.  She continues to support Russia action in the area despite its naked ambitions to prop up Assad.  

When the US condemn's the Saudi's or the Israeli's for their crimes, then I'll take this line of reasoning seriously. What would those countries do if an opposition force within their borders was being funded by a major power? I think Tulsi, like me, see's the utter hypocrisy at work and is sending a big middle finger to the foreign policy establishment in Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

When the US condemn's the Saudi's or the Israeli's for their crimes, then I'll take this line of reasoning seriously. What would those countries do if an opposition force within their borders was being funded by a major power? I think Tulsi, like me, see's the utter hypocrisy at work and is sending a big middle finger to the foreign policy establishment in Washington.

There's no debate from me that current U.S. policy with respect to various mid-east nations is tied in knots and lack any semblance of consistency.  It's the height of hypocrisy for some U.S. legislators to condemn the violence in Syria but support Saudia Arabia in their brutal efforts in Yemen.  So I get that.  I also think that we unfortunately live in a world where consistency isn't always possible.  Political realism dictates that you have to pick your battles for the greater purpose.  But that's for another conversation. 

In any event, your post is still besides the point with respect to the discussion of Gabbard and her soft spot for Assad and Russian involvement in Syria that has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands and one of the worst humanitarian conflicts.  It's kind of warped logic for Gabbard to point to that inconsistency to validate her position on Syria.  It makes zero sense to me that the U.S. should look the other way in Syria simply because it puts them in contradiction with other countries.  If anything, it should prompt U.S. policy to pressure other countries to end the killing and stop sectarian violence in plays like Yemen, Gaza, and the West Bank.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, downzy said:

There's no debate from me that current U.S. policy with respect to various mid-east nations is tied in knots and lack any semblance of consistency.  It's the height of hypocrisy for some U.S. legislators to condemn the violence in Syria but support Saudia Arabia in their brutal efforts in Yemen.  So I get that.  I also think that we unfortunately live in a world where consistency isn't always possible.  Political realism dictates that you have to pick your battles for the greater purpose.  But that's for another conversation. 

In any event, your post is still besides the point with respect to the discussion of Gabbard and her soft spot for Assad and Russian involvement in Syria that has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands and one of the worst humanitarian conflicts.  It's kind of warped logic for Gabbard to point to that inconsistency to validate her position on Syria.  It makes zero sense to me that the U.S. should look the other way in Syria simply because it puts them in contradiction with other countries.  If anything, it should prompt U.S. policy to pressure other countries to end the killing and stop sectarian violence in plays like Yemen, Gaza, and the West Bank.

 

I don't know what Gabbards internal motivations are. I mean, she served in Iraq so maybe she just has it out for the foreign policy establishment and will oppose whatever they do. In some sense I couldn't blame her if that's her thought. But that's speculation.

But back to Assad, he's been trying to put down an armed rebellion of his country. The people in that armed rebellion are accused of war crimes themselves. How else would any leader put down an armed rebellion but brutally? The chemical weapons are still a question mark in my mind, but sure he's done conventional bombing and such. But I find it extremely dishonest to single this guy out when all of our allies would be doing the same thing in his position. Hell look at our own history. Lincoln brutally put down rebelling states, and all they did was secede! Yet he's our national saint. This all smells like typical Washington gamesmanship trying to undermine who they see as their enemy in the Russian/Iranian/Syrian axis.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

But back to Assad, he's been trying to put down an armed rebellion of his country. The people in that armed rebellion are accused of war crimes themselves. How else would any leader put down an armed rebellion but brutally? The chemical weapons are still a question mark in my mind, but sure he's done conventional bombing and such. But I find it extremely dishonest to single this guy out when all of our allies would be doing the same thing in his position. Hell look at our own history. Lincoln brutally put down rebelling states, and all they did was secede! Yet he's our national saint. This all smells like typical Washington gamesmanship trying to undermine who they see as their enemy in the Russian/Iranian/Syrian axis.

That's revisionist history if I've ever heard it.

First, no country is one person's country.  This isn't the 17th century.  If the people are calling for someone to step down through mass protests and the person refuses to go, then what other recourse do they have but to take up arms.  Syria was, and still isn't a democracy.  There's no other recourse against a tyrant.  By that logic you would have sided with King George in his attempts to put down the armed rebellion that gave birth to the United States.

Second, the armed rebellion was only in response to the violent crackdown of protests to Assad's rule.  You make it sound as though opposition forces were violent from the get go.  The Arab Spring saw peaceful demonstrations across the region against sitting autocrats.  Leaders either decided to abdicate, pay off its citizens, or use violent force to crack down on the protests.  Assad chose the latter.  

Third, how are the chemical attacks still a question mark in your mind?  Sorry, but how much cognitive dissonance are you going to carry on this one when every intelligence agency and independent inspection groups point to Assad for the 2013 chemical attacks?  

Fourth, you honestly think leaders of developed nations would resort to violent crackdowns of peaceful protests?  Maybe Trump would, but it's absurd to claim that any other leader would act similarly to Assad when other leaders in the regions acted in the opposite manner.

Fifth, you might want to revisit your history on the civil war.  You're getting it wrong.  There was no provision in the constitution to secede, let along for the purposes of protecting the institution of slavery.  You're now at the point of making a fucked up equivalency of people of Syria demanding freedom from Assad with southern slave owners demanding their rights to own slaves. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, downzy said:

Fourth, you honestly think leaders of developed nations would resort to violent crackdowns of peaceful protests?

Really? As we observe the anniversary of the Winnipeg General Strike? Of course leaders in developed nations resort to violent crackdowns on peaceful protestors. In the colonial state that you and I live in even. Or do you figure the cops are militarized incase a neighbouring City invades?

I think you meant to be more specific about the early years of the Syrain peoples movement(s) when Assad kidnapped and tortured citizens for their opinions? But as you wrote it, the only thing to say is that developed nations use violence on peaceful protestors every single day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, soon said:

I think you meant to be more specific about the early years of the Syrain peoples movement(s) when Assad kidnapped and tortured citizens for their opinions? But as you wrote it, the only thing to say is that developed nations use violence on peaceful protestors every single day. 

:facepalm:

FFS.  Really?  You really think this distinction needed to be made and involve yourself in the conversation to make it?  

It should be obvious to anyone even remotely aware of what happened that the level of violence in Syria is not in any way comparable to policing and organizing protests in modern developed nations.  

The Winnipeg General Strike took over a hundred years ago.  The discussion is about current political times.  Let's not waste our time with this nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

That's revisionist history if I've ever heard it.

First, no country is one person's country.  This isn't the 17th century.  If the people are calling for someone to step down through mass protests and the person refuses to go, then what other recourse do they have but to take up arms.  Syria was, and still isn't a democracy.  There's no other recourse against a tyrant.  By that logic you would have sided with King George in his attempts to put down the armed rebellion that gave birth to the United States.

Second, the armed rebellion was only in response to the violent crackdown of protests to Assad's rule.  You make it sound as though opposition forces were violent from the get go.  The Arab Spring saw peaceful demonstrations across the region against sitting autocrats.  Leaders either decided to abdicate, pay off its citizens, or use violent force to crack down on the protests.  Assad chose the latter.  

Third, how are the chemical attacks still a question mark in your mind?  Sorry, but how much cognitive dissonance are you going to carry on this one when every intelligence agency and independent inspection groups point to Assad for the 2013 chemical attacks?  

Fourth, you honestly think leaders of developed nations would resort to violent crackdowns of peaceful protests?  Maybe Trump would, but it's absurd to claim that any other leader would act similarly to Assad when other leaders in the regions acted in the opposite manner.

Fifth, you might want to revisit your history on the civil war.  You're getting it wrong.  There was no provision in the constitution to secede, let along for the purposes of protecting the institution of slavery.  You're now at the point of making a fucked up equivalency of people of Syria demanding freedom from Assad with southern slave owners demanding their rights to own slaves. 

 

If Assad is so terrible then does he have anyone at all fighting for him? Did the whole country rise up in rebellion of him or no? Did even a majority? What about the people who didn't rise up and fight with him? It seems like the rebels are in the minority here. And there's no way to tell if they'd be even more repressive than Assad himself!

I can both be against the institution of slavery and be against Lincoln's policy of escalation and lack of imagination when it came to diffusing the situation. A great leader would have compromises on the table that got rid of the institution over a set amount of time and some sort of compensation to the south for the ending of the institution and to transition their economy. He didn't even try to go down this road and it led to the death of over a half million people! Remember, many of the whites in the south were dirt poor and had very little job prospects. Would they have been so willing to fight if Lincoln had legitimate compromise offers on the table? That would have greatly undermined the southern slave leaders position.

How are Macron's thugs handling the protests of the yellow vests? And those people are only fighting with their fists. Now imagine if they had arms and were being funded and further armed by China. Would he not crack down brutally upon them? You know the answer to this.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

If Assad is so terrible then does he have anyone at all fighting for him?

Of course he does.  That's not really the point.  The point is he suppressed public protests calling for the end of his regime with brute force that led rise to the armed rebellion.

7 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Did the whole country rise up in rebellion of him or no?

There were nation wide protests in 2011.  Was it a majority?  Can't really say since before we could find out through real elections Assad began using his military to mow down violent suppression.

10 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

It seems like the rebels are in the minority here

And this is based on what exactly?

10 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

And there's no way to tell if they'd be even more repressive than Assad himself!

Maybe not.  But again, that's besides the point.  Assad showed who he was in responding to the protests.  He lost his moral authority to govern over Syria through his actions.  Who's to say that opposing forces wouldn't have done the same.  But we do know for certainty that Assad mobilized his own military against his own people and employed torture and kidnapping to enforce his will.  That we know for sure.

12 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I can both be against the institution of slavery and be against Lincoln's policy of escalation and lack of imagination when it came to diffusing the situation

Sure you could, but that's not what you were doing.  

You were making the case that because Lincoln opted to enforce the Constitution (by which the southern states had agreed to but now wanted out of because they were about to lose their right to own slaves) he's in the same moral boundary as Assad who used brutal violence against those called for his regime to end and free elections to take place.  Again, I find that kind of logic highly suspect.  On the one hand you have on group of people who are denying basic rights to millions demanding their own release from a constitution that allows for no seceding with someone who brutalizing his won citizens.  It's nothing short of absurd.

17 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

A great leader would have compromises on the table that got rid of the institution over a set amount of time and some sort of compensation to the south for the ending of the institution and to transition their economy.

Interesting, so you don't think Lincoln was a great leader?  That puts you at odds with almost every historical authority on the matter.

In any event, the South was never going to relinquish their rights to slavery without a fight.  

18 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

He didn't even try to go down this road and it led to the death of over a half million people!

As opposed to the millions who lived in slavery and the millions more who would have lived in bondage and likely suffered early deaths if the Civil War hadn't happened.

19 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Remember, many of the whites in the south were dirt poor and had very little job prospects. Would they have been so willing to fight if Lincoln had legitimate compromise offers on the table?

It's pretty simple.  They fought because they were white.  They might have been poor and destitute, but at least the institution of slavery made them feel superior to the black folks made to work the fields.  It's the same dynamic of racial politics that plagues current political discourse and why poor white folks continually vote against their own financial interest. 

24 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

How are Macron's thugs handling the protests of the yellow vests?

LOL.  Really?  Have you not been paying attention?  The yellow vest movement descended into riots over rising gas prices in a country that allows for democratic removal of legislators and Presidents.  The response by the station was in no way comparable to the crack down by Assad forces on protestors.  Sorry, but this absolutely nonsense.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, downzy said:

Of course he does.  That's not really the point.  The point is he suppressed public protests calling for the end of his regime with brute force that led rise to the armed rebellion.

There were nation wide protests in 2011.  Was it a majority?  Can't really say since before we could find out through real elections Assad began using his military to mow down violent suppression.

And this is based on what exactly?

Maybe not.  But again, that's besides the point.  Assad showed who he was in responding to the protests.  He lost his moral authority to govern over Syria through his actions.  Who's to say that opposing forces wouldn't have done the same.  But we do know for certainty that Assad mobilized his own military against his own people and employed torture and kidnapping to enforce his will.  That we know for sure.

Sure you could, but that's not what you were doing.  

You were making the case that because Lincoln opted to enforce the Constitution (by which the southern states had agreed to but now wanted out of because they were about to lose their right to own slaves) he's in the same moral boundary as Assad who used brutal violence against those called for his regime to end and free elections to take place.  Again, I find that kind of logic highly suspect.  On the one hand you have on group of people who are denying basic rights to millions demanding their own release from a constitution that allows for no seceding with someone who brutalizing his won citizens.  It's nothing short of absurd.

Interesting, so you don't think Lincoln was a great leader?  That puts you at odds with almost every historical authority on the matter.

In any event, the South was never going to relinquish their rights to slavery without a fight.  

As opposed to the millions who lived in slavery and the millions more who would have lived in bondage and likely suffered early deaths if the Civil War hadn't happened.

It's pretty simple.  They fought because they were white.  They might have been poor and destitute, but at least the institution of slavery made them feel superior to the black folks made to work the fields.  It's the same dynamic of racial politics that plagues current political discourse and why poor white folks continually vote against their own financial interest. 

LOL.  Really?  Have you not been paying attention?  The yellow vest movement descended into riots over rising gas prices in a country that allows for democratic removal of legislators and Presidents.  The response by the station was in no way comparable to the crack down by Assad forces on protestors.  Sorry, but this absolutely nonsense.  

Well here's evidence from 2012 that shows 55% of the people wanted Assad to stay, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

Why would a majority of the population want him to stay if he was just randomly mowing people down?

And let's cut the crap on US foreign policy and stop acting like any of this is due to morals. Everything here is about projecting power and playing geo-strategic games.

 

No I don't consider Lincoln a great leader. Too much blood on his hands and too little effort in compromise for me to give him the label of great. The North and South were both run by plutocratic interests, so I see the whole thing as a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. If Lincoln were great and truly wanted to avoid bloodshed, he would have had offers on the table to avoid war, what were they?

 

Those protests in France are about more than gas taxes. I would contend that they are essentially protests against neoliberalism itself. Sure, we have democratic processes to change legislators and presidents too, doesn't seem to actually change much now does it.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×