Man, I know BLM can get out of hand some times but to hear you talk about them it sounds like they're part of some super conspiracy / civilization ending. Furthermore, Clinton has never supported any of their getting out of hand but has most certainly supported their core message of trying to bring attention to the problems in our black communities.
I believe our aid into Syria was completed restricted to non military aid before ISIS came into the picture so the whole US using Syria as part of a proxy war against Russia doesnt really hold up. We only started bombing and sending in special forces teams when ISIS became a major issue.
Your reasoning is ridiculous. They speak their own language which makes them culturally distinct from Russia right there. Just because they share some distant bloodline with Russians isn't reason enough for Russian to just move in and annex them. If that's how the world worked most of the worlds boarders would have to be redrawn.
It certainly wouldnt surprise me if the US was nudging things along a little in the Ukraine just before the Russian invasion. The CIA are not mind controllers though. If there wasn't wind-spread distaste for the prior governments aligning with Russia to tap into then there wouldn't have been anything to nudge. Just look at the "civil war" happening there. I would imagine if there was wide spread dissatisfaction with their new government's attempts to align itself to the West there would be a heck of a lot more people revolting then a few ethnic Russians who only hold out against the rest of the country because of heavy Russian support.
In regards to "missiles on their boarder", there are no nuclear missiles in former Soviet states so I don't see the Cuban missile crisis as a particularly apt comparison.
On to Syria
The report you post to seems to be just discussing the dangers of ISIS and assessing the situation in Syria and Iraq. It also talks a bit about what other countries are doing and who they're backing in Syria but not the US so I'm a bit puzzled as to the relevancy it has to our conversation. All the video is doing is taking the report and then some how making it about the US which from what I'm reading it is not. The fact is ISIS spawned from Al Qaeda in Iraq which given our past history is not a faction the US would likely knowingly support. Some of the Arab states might have a bit (in fact it wouldnt surprise me) but the idea that the US was actively aiding ISIS in a significant fashion is ridiculous given where they came from.
I'm not sure what to make of your first paragraph as it doesn't change the fact that Ukraine was a sovereign nation that spent 50 years of recent history under the thumb of Russia against their will.
As for what Russia will or won't tolerate, that's Russia's problem. My point above was that it's Russia that is heavily involved in proxy warfare, not the West or the US specifically.
When you forcibly occupy your neighbors for 50 years most of them are not going to like you anymore and Russia is just going to have to deal with that. Just look at the US in this context, the US / Canada boarder is the worlds largest undefended boarder on both sides because it's inconceivable to either side that any aggression across the boarder would take place. In the South, there are immigration controls and forces tasked with stopping drug shipments on the US side of the US / Mexican boarder but again virtually no military presence for either side. When you generally respect your neighbors they generally respect you back.
For starters, your links don't show that the government turnover didn't have to do with resentment over 50 years of Russian hegemony over Ukraine as opposed to Western influence. One would think that if the Ukrainian masses weren't pro-West then the civil war wouldn't be restricted to the small, ethnically Russian territories, clearly being fueled by Russia and that this small minority wouldn't be able to resist the military might of the overall country without Russian military supplies (like tanks) that Ukraine never owned and thus couldn't have been seized from them.
As for Syria, the US only started seriously supporting militant groups in Syria after the rise of ISIS. It's certainly possible limited aid was going into this country that had been directly antagonistic to the US for at least a half century prior to that but Russia has only gotten involved in that mess recently so I would most definitely not call that a proxy war as the aid was never about Russia
Well for starters he want's to build a wall that will be massively expensive to build and maintain and that won't do a thing to stop the laws of supply and demand that fuel illegal immigration (look up e-verify as a way to actually curb demand).
Next, he has shown himself to be keen on using language non-whites find extremely offensive at a time of heightened racial tensions which is certainly not good for US long term stability.
His big plan for economic growth would sink us farther in debt than anything Hillary has outlined.
What else does he even have after that? The guy is pretty much devoid of policy after that behind vague promises that everything well be better. Meanwhile, you can go to Hilary's website and find out about all sorts o economic policies she has.
Bernie couldn't win New York by a long shot. Sure, I voted for the guy but if you can't carry New York as a Democrat or at least come close then you are just not the party's candidate.
I'd say the same for California but we vote so late in the primaries we don't matter.
Well being that Hitler is dead, I think he'd be the safer vote.
And seriously, quite a lot of the people who voted for Hitler early on weren't voting for "killing all Jews" or anyone else.
As for trump not being violent, he has eluded to the beating of ejected protesters as being acceptable several times on film. Just because in the age of modern media he won't come out and say it doesn't mean he's a great guy.
Oh please, what did the DNC do that was so horrible to Bernie? Bernie knew he wasn't the favored candidate when he joined the Democrats to have a chance in hell at becoming president. So then the DNC didn't go out of their way to back this guy that became one of them only when it was convenient for him? Big surprise, a political party backed it's favorite candidate over some one trying to milk the system.
And don't get me wrong here, I voted for Bernie in the primaries and would have loved it if he had won. I just think most of the "Bernie was wronged so we won't vote Clinton" crowd are operating at a level of pure naivety. Even Bernie has now endorsed Clinton and he's only been a Democrat for like a year.
"Start proxy wars with Russia"? How about Russia not starting proxy wars with the West? Russia invades and seizes part of Ukraine just when they decide they want to be more pro EU. It even currently enjoys a "civil war" that wouldnt have lasted a week without Russian arms and soldiers. They control a tiny portion of the country but somehow are capable of withstanding the rest of the country's army not to mention performing large offensive pushed early in the war? Clearly all of those photos of Russian military equipment Ukraine never owned from within Ukraine show something is going on, right?
Or maybe Syria is the "proxy war" you speak of? Was all of the Arab spring started by the US or just the Syria part? Is our extensive campaign against ISIS, where ever they may be, a secret move against Russia?
Or maybe the proxy war was those evil Georgians that got invaded by Russia right when entering into NATO might have been a possibility?
Please. Tell me. What are these terrible evils the US visits on Russia?
When was the last time the US saw a tangible benefit from US foreign policy!? How about all of the shipping lanes that are pirate free thanks to us? Do they not benefit us? How about the favorable trade status so many countries give us because of what we do? You're tracing things all the way back to the Korean War (what a bizarre date to name)? So we're not better off for winning the cold war? That's not true at all. Even things as simple as intelligence sharing the US has benefited immensely from in the last 50 years.
And let's maybe try something maybe even Fox news covered for you. How about the multinational invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11?
You have no idea what you're talking about if you think there isn't anything the US has benefited from in the last half century's foreign policy.
She certainly had her failures but Bin Laden being killed under her watched is no small victory. All anyone was talking about as a threat to the US was Al Qaeda when she became secretary of state. By the time she left they had been reduced to a much smaller, more regional player.
Furthermore, some of her "failures", such as Libya, were practically no win scenarios. Do we send in the Army and risk getting bogged down in another Iraq scenario? Do we do nothing (which turned out terribly in Syria)? Or do we help in a limited context like supplying air power and hope the rebels can sort themselves out when everything is over? Obviously we chose the last option and it clearly didnt turn out well but were those other two options really good ones either?
In summary, I see what you're saying here but I disagree. Clinton has infinitely more experience when it comes to national defense than Trump and her track record isnt nearly as bad as some try to paint it. Also, being thoroughly establishment, she is far more predictable. Meanwhile, Trump is thin skinned, petty and insulting, and has zero expertise in this area. He's already upsetting our key allies around the world and he's not even president.
Instead of building a massively expensive wall that will cost huge sums of money to maintain and do nothing to change the demand for illegal immigrant labor, thus doing nothing to fix the problem, why don't we try to do something that might work?
Mandatory use of e-verify (a system already in place) for all American employers along with government inspections of typical offending industries (like anything in this country having to do with food production) coupled with harsh penalties for offending companies. All of a sudden companies will start taking responsibility for those they hire and it will no longer be cost effective to hire illegal immigrants which will drastically reduce demand for their labor. No jobs, no reason to come here illegally. On top of it actually helping to solve the problem, it would also be ridiculously cheaper then a wall and would finally be punishing the real bad guys in all this, American companies that have been turning a blind eye to who they employ.
You rarely hear Republicans talk about this though for two reasons. A) If something is done that actually solves the problem then they lose a key wedge issue. They're losing gay marriage to social change which just leaves abortion and illegal immigration to keep their party in line. B) The food industry is a very red state business (outside of California) and Republicans would lose a ton of money from agribusiness who would have to pay proper wages to American citizens.
"Growth", as in economic growth, as in the thing that generates more jobs and higher wages for us "regular people". Brexit, the UK cutting itself off from it's largest trade partner, will most assuredly not bring them growth.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I know BLM can get out of hand some times but to hear you talk about them it sounds like they're part of some super conspiracy / civilization ending. Furthermore, Clinton has never supported any of their getting out of hand but has most certainly supported their core message of trying to bring attention to the problems in our black communities.
So all of those things were organised by Hillary?
Wait, no they weren't. You're changing the subject from candidates to the actions of angry activists.
Oh, thanks. Should i just repost my post again?
Let me see if I'm getting your narrative straight here.
So the US, after invading Iraq, went around and trained the very people resisting what the US was doing?
I believe our aid into Syria was completed restricted to non military aid before ISIS came into the picture so the whole US using Syria as part of a proxy war against Russia doesnt really hold up. We only started bombing and sending in special forces teams when ISIS became a major issue.
Your reasoning is ridiculous. They speak their own language which makes them culturally distinct from Russia right there. Just because they share some distant bloodline with Russians isn't reason enough for Russian to just move in and annex them. If that's how the world worked most of the worlds boarders would have to be redrawn.
It certainly wouldnt surprise me if the US was nudging things along a little in the Ukraine just before the Russian invasion. The CIA are not mind controllers though. If there wasn't wind-spread distaste for the prior governments aligning with Russia to tap into then there wouldn't have been anything to nudge. Just look at the "civil war" happening there. I would imagine if there was wide spread dissatisfaction with their new government's attempts to align itself to the West there would be a heck of a lot more people revolting then a few ethnic Russians who only hold out against the rest of the country because of heavy Russian support.
In regards to "missiles on their boarder", there are no nuclear missiles in former Soviet states so I don't see the Cuban missile crisis as a particularly apt comparison.
On to Syria
The report you post to seems to be just discussing the dangers of ISIS and assessing the situation in Syria and Iraq. It also talks a bit about what other countries are doing and who they're backing in Syria but not the US so I'm a bit puzzled as to the relevancy it has to our conversation. All the video is doing is taking the report and then some how making it about the US which from what I'm reading it is not. The fact is ISIS spawned from Al Qaeda in Iraq which given our past history is not a faction the US would likely knowingly support. Some of the Arab states might have a bit (in fact it wouldnt surprise me) but the idea that the US was actively aiding ISIS in a significant fashion is ridiculous given where they came from.
I'm not sure what to make of your first paragraph as it doesn't change the fact that Ukraine was a sovereign nation that spent 50 years of recent history under the thumb of Russia against their will.
As for what Russia will or won't tolerate, that's Russia's problem. My point above was that it's Russia that is heavily involved in proxy warfare, not the West or the US specifically.
When you forcibly occupy your neighbors for 50 years most of them are not going to like you anymore and Russia is just going to have to deal with that. Just look at the US in this context, the US / Canada boarder is the worlds largest undefended boarder on both sides because it's inconceivable to either side that any aggression across the boarder would take place. In the South, there are immigration controls and forces tasked with stopping drug shipments on the US side of the US / Mexican boarder but again virtually no military presence for either side. When you generally respect your neighbors they generally respect you back.
For starters, your links don't show that the government turnover didn't have to do with resentment over 50 years of Russian hegemony over Ukraine as opposed to Western influence. One would think that if the Ukrainian masses weren't pro-West then the civil war wouldn't be restricted to the small, ethnically Russian territories, clearly being fueled by Russia and that this small minority wouldn't be able to resist the military might of the overall country without Russian military supplies (like tanks) that Ukraine never owned and thus couldn't have been seized from them.
As for Syria, the US only started seriously supporting militant groups in Syria after the rise of ISIS. It's certainly possible limited aid was going into this country that had been directly antagonistic to the US for at least a half century prior to that but Russia has only gotten involved in that mess recently so I would most definitely not call that a proxy war as the aid was never about Russia
Countries like Ukraine don't come to NATO because of Western influence, they come to NATO because of 50 years of Russian hegemony.
And when has the US tried to put nukes in Ukraine? You're just making things up. No former Soviet states in NATO host US nuclear missiles.
Well for starters he want's to build a wall that will be massively expensive to build and maintain and that won't do a thing to stop the laws of supply and demand that fuel illegal immigration (look up e-verify as a way to actually curb demand).
Next, he has shown himself to be keen on using language non-whites find extremely offensive at a time of heightened racial tensions which is certainly not good for US long term stability.
His big plan for economic growth would sink us farther in debt than anything Hillary has outlined.
What else does he even have after that? The guy is pretty much devoid of policy after that behind vague promises that everything well be better. Meanwhile, you can go to Hilary's website and find out about all sorts o economic policies she has.
Bernie couldn't win New York by a long shot. Sure, I voted for the guy but if you can't carry New York as a Democrat or at least come close then you are just not the party's candidate.
I'd say the same for California but we vote so late in the primaries we don't matter.
Well being that Hitler is dead, I think he'd be the safer vote.
And seriously, quite a lot of the people who voted for Hitler early on weren't voting for "killing all Jews" or anyone else.
As for trump not being violent, he has eluded to the beating of ejected protesters as being acceptable several times on film. Just because in the age of modern media he won't come out and say it doesn't mean he's a great guy.
Oh please, what did the DNC do that was so horrible to Bernie? Bernie knew he wasn't the favored candidate when he joined the Democrats to have a chance in hell at becoming president. So then the DNC didn't go out of their way to back this guy that became one of them only when it was convenient for him? Big surprise, a political party backed it's favorite candidate over some one trying to milk the system.
And don't get me wrong here, I voted for Bernie in the primaries and would have loved it if he had won. I just think most of the "Bernie was wronged so we won't vote Clinton" crowd are operating at a level of pure naivety. Even Bernie has now endorsed Clinton and he's only been a Democrat for like a year.
No he's not and in the states where the polls actually matter he isn't either. What on earth have you been looking at?
How on earth would Trump have won the Republican primaries if he didn't have a lot of followers that were Republicans? That's a literal contradiction.
Not to be rude, but even without addressing the rest of your post, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about,
"Start proxy wars with Russia"? How about Russia not starting proxy wars with the West? Russia invades and seizes part of Ukraine just when they decide they want to be more pro EU. It even currently enjoys a "civil war" that wouldnt have lasted a week without Russian arms and soldiers. They control a tiny portion of the country but somehow are capable of withstanding the rest of the country's army not to mention performing large offensive pushed early in the war? Clearly all of those photos of Russian military equipment Ukraine never owned from within Ukraine show something is going on, right?
Or maybe Syria is the "proxy war" you speak of? Was all of the Arab spring started by the US or just the Syria part? Is our extensive campaign against ISIS, where ever they may be, a secret move against Russia?
Or maybe the proxy war was those evil Georgians that got invaded by Russia right when entering into NATO might have been a possibility?
Please. Tell me. What are these terrible evils the US visits on Russia?
Not it's not.
Unfortunatly for you, you dont live in a black and white world but one composed of shades of gray
Maybe we could call it a "Web Browser"?
When was the last time the US saw a tangible benefit from US foreign policy!? How about all of the shipping lanes that are pirate free thanks to us? Do they not benefit us? How about the favorable trade status so many countries give us because of what we do? You're tracing things all the way back to the Korean War (what a bizarre date to name)? So we're not better off for winning the cold war? That's not true at all. Even things as simple as intelligence sharing the US has benefited immensely from in the last 50 years.
And let's maybe try something maybe even Fox news covered for you. How about the multinational invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11?
You have no idea what you're talking about if you think there isn't anything the US has benefited from in the last half century's foreign policy.
Um, alright. So how is that good for the US?
I ask because I figure a US president's actions should benefit the US.
She certainly had her failures but Bin Laden being killed under her watched is no small victory. All anyone was talking about as a threat to the US was Al Qaeda when she became secretary of state. By the time she left they had been reduced to a much smaller, more regional player.
Furthermore, some of her "failures", such as Libya, were practically no win scenarios. Do we send in the Army and risk getting bogged down in another Iraq scenario? Do we do nothing (which turned out terribly in Syria)? Or do we help in a limited context like supplying air power and hope the rebels can sort themselves out when everything is over? Obviously we chose the last option and it clearly didnt turn out well but were those other two options really good ones either?
In summary, I see what you're saying here but I disagree. Clinton has infinitely more experience when it comes to national defense than Trump and her track record isnt nearly as bad as some try to paint it. Also, being thoroughly establishment, she is far more predictable. Meanwhile, Trump is thin skinned, petty and insulting, and has zero expertise in this area. He's already upsetting our key allies around the world and he's not even president.
Instead of building a massively expensive wall that will cost huge sums of money to maintain and do nothing to change the demand for illegal immigrant labor, thus doing nothing to fix the problem, why don't we try to do something that might work?
Mandatory use of e-verify (a system already in place) for all American employers along with government inspections of typical offending industries (like anything in this country having to do with food production) coupled with harsh penalties for offending companies. All of a sudden companies will start taking responsibility for those they hire and it will no longer be cost effective to hire illegal immigrants which will drastically reduce demand for their labor. No jobs, no reason to come here illegally. On top of it actually helping to solve the problem, it would also be ridiculously cheaper then a wall and would finally be punishing the real bad guys in all this, American companies that have been turning a blind eye to who they employ.
You rarely hear Republicans talk about this though for two reasons.
A) If something is done that actually solves the problem then they lose a key wedge issue. They're losing gay marriage to social change which just leaves abortion and illegal immigration to keep their party in line.
B) The food industry is a very red state business (outside of California) and Republicans would lose a ton of money from agribusiness who would have to pay proper wages to American citizens.
"Growth", as in economic growth, as in the thing that generates more jobs and higher wages for us "regular people". Brexit, the UK cutting itself off from it's largest trade partner, will most assuredly not bring them growth.