Jump to content
LooseGoose

Civilian Plane Shot Down In Ukraine - the political angle

Recommended Posts

You agree with Obamas policies....I do not. You disagreed with Bushs policies...I agreed with them. If you keep singling people out (TS and Shabba) and go after them for expressing what THEY are feeling...it will never end. That is not objectivity.

So is the upshot here that I should only single out people who post things I agree with? Do you do this? I think the evidence is rather strong that you single folks out quite often.

What's the overall point of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $200 Free Offer - Launching Friday (1/22)

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is launching on Friday, January 22, 2021. Pre-register at BetMGM Sportsbook & Casino and get a free $200 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $200 at BetMGM Michigan Now

2 years was enough time for an Eisenhower to emerge in the wake of Pearl Harbor when he was a passed over Colonel in a microscopic Army to the eve of D-Day as joint US and British commander of the greatest invasion ever assembled.

We know what Kerry and Hagel are: worthless. Biden and Rice are worse than worthless.

It's not so much that I think nobody will come out with a workable policy plan, it's that I don't think that plan will be accepted by the hardliners who dominate the Right at the moment (i.e. people who want U.S. troops on the ground months ago). Or, it will come from a person/people who for other reasons will be rejected by the GOP base and therefore will never get a chance to put the plan into action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it turns out to be true that the rebels captured the weapon from the Ukrainian military, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to provide them with better weapons until they establish that they can hang on to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not so much that I think nobody will come out with a workable policy plan, it's that I don't think that plan will be accepted by the hardliners who dominate the Right at the moment (i.e. people who want U.S. troops on the ground months ago). Or, it will come from a person/people who for other reasons will be rejected by the GOP base and therefore will never get a chance to put the plan into action.

These discussions are ongoing. A couple data points.

1. The isolationists are just a non-starter

2. The neocons are in disrepute, it matters to "the Money" that the party win...not that intervention on behalf of every flower of democracy occurs.

3. The debates in the GOP policy bodies recall that the surge(s) worked in both Iraq and AFG but these gains were trashed by the Biden faction of POTUS foreign policy braintrust. Resulting in Mosul.

4. The Scowcroft/Condi Rice faction had been fighting the Neocon faction and despite Condi's involvement at State she was not running the foreign policy show.

My guess is that the emerging bipartisan policy prescription is going to be containment of all the isms. Putinism, Political Islamism, Chavezism. That worked for the most part, give or take Lyndon Johnson's adventurism in Vietnam for 40+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These discussions are ongoing. A couple data points.

1. The isolationists are just a non-starter

2. The neocons are in disrepute, it matters to "the Money" that the party win...not that intervention on behalf of every flower of democracy occurs.

3. The debates in the GOP policy bodies recall that the surge(s) worked in both Iraq and AFG but these gains were trashed by the Biden faction of POTUS foreign policy braintrust. Resulting in Mosul.

4. The Scowcroft/Condi Rice faction had been fighting the Neocon faction and despite Condi's involvement at State she was not running the foreign policy show.

My guess is that the emerging bipartisan policy prescription is going to be containment of all the isms. Putinism, Political Islamism, Chavezism. That worked for the most part, give or take Lyndon Johnson's adventurism in Vietnam for 40+ years.

CSIS recent analysis would dispute the 'surge' in Afghan had any net positive effect analogous to that in Iraq.

The bigger issue however is what the surge produced in Iraq was never going to be sustainable. The surge worked because WE paid for the Sunni support that no Shia Iraqi government was ever going to sustain. There was a basic and irresolvable contradiction in US policy which was that we were committed to both 'self-determination' for an Iraqi government and a military strategy that depending on a continuing US military presence. Those two outcomes were never compatible (even aside from the fact that the US public also would not support further US casualties in Iraq). We could NOT both give the Shia majority the right to vote and expect them to not to use it to ask us to go away. That intrinsic contradiction basically invalidates the arguments of that the interventionist rearguard is making today. We gave the Iraqis a chance to survive as a nation and it was *their* choice to turn it down. You cannot both given them democracy and not risk the majority population making a bad choice.

The only way our military strategy for the Iraqi army (or FTM Afghanistan) could ever have have been guaranteed against the chance of internal Iragi failure was a long term US regency. When the hindsighters are willing to admit that fact and argue for that highly non-democratic policy outright, then they will have some credibility.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CSIS recent analysis would dispute the 'surge' in Afghan had any net positive effect analogous to that in Iraq.

The bigger issue however is what the surge produced in Iraq was never going to be sustainable. The surge worked because WE paid for the Sunni support that no Shia Iraqi government was ever going to sustain. There was a basic and irresolvable contradiction in US policy which was that we were committed to both 'self-determination' for an Iraqi government and a military strategy that depending on a continuing US military presence. Those two outcomes were never compatible (even aside from the fact that the US public also would not support further US casualties in Iraq). We could NOT both give the Shia majority the right to vote and expect them to not to use it to ask us to go away. That intrinsic contradiction basically invalidates the arguments of that the interventionist rearguard is making today. We gave the Iraqis a chance to survive as a nation and it was *their* choice to turn it down. You cannot both given them democracy and not risk the majority population making a bad choice.

The only way our military strategy for the Iraqi army (or FTM Afghanistan) could ever have have been guaranteed against the chance of internal Iragi failure was a long term US regency. When the hindsighters are willing to admit that fact and argue for that highly non-democratic policy outright, then they will have some credibility.

I brought up that data point because it does cloud the judgement of those who review those conflicts. I think those who had boots on the ground are going to step up though. (Not the Allen Wests of the World...)

If an emerging containment consensus emerges it will require some guts, some blood, but everyone knows that occupation forces are not being assembled from Generation Z or whatever we are on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it turns out to be true that the rebels captured the weapon from the Ukrainian military, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to provide them with better weapons until they establish that they can hang on to them.

Unfortunately, John McCain thinks you are a coward for thinking that...

“It’s just been cowardly, it’s a cowardly administration that failed to give the Ukrainians weapons with which to defend themselves,” McCain said.

Read more: John McCain: Obama White House

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I brought up that data point because it does cloud the judgement of those who review those conflicts. I think those who had boots on the ground are going to step up though. (Not the Allen Wests of the World...)

If an emerging containment consensus emerges it will require some guts, some blood, but everyone knows that occupation forces are not being assembled from Generation Z or whatever we are on now.

So it seems not considered is the world as it now is. Containment is a different challenge than it once was. We have not wrapped our minds around the meaning of 9/11 and the havoc that a relatively few can cause. Call Bush a fool or an idealist but he believed more representative societies would be a force against extremism. So how does this new containment work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it seems not considered is the world as it now is. Containment is a different challenge than it once was. We have not wrapped our minds around the meaning of 9/11 and the havoc that a relatively few can cause. Call Bush a fool or an idealist but he believed more representative societies would be a force against extremism. So how does this new containment work?

Korea was containment. It kept the NKs from storming across the border or just destroying Seoul with Artillery.

I also believe Afghanistan was/is containment. The sensible version is more robust active version that keeps the people who are (still) trying to kill you pinned down until they are no longer trying to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you ever sit back and wonder how so many irrational thoughts turn into words that come out of your mouth (keyboard)?

...and WHO are you again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it seems not considered is the world as it now is. Containment is a different challenge than it once was. We have not wrapped our minds around the meaning of 9/11 and the havoc that a relatively few can cause. Call Bush a fool or an idealist but he believed more representative societies would be a force against extremism. So how does this new containment work?

Maybe I'm being too retro here but I think US policy for a long time, including containment, has became an exercise in fighting ideas with organizational reform, and it turns out that only worked in the cold war accidentally. Democracy was an organizational form that defeated communism because the repudiation of the *idea* intrinsic to the negative aspect of communism - the dictatorship of the vanguard - was already baked into that particular organizational reform - elections.

But that Schema has been a manifest failure since, particularly in dealing with the Muslim world, because our ideological enemies are perfectly happy to co-opt the form of democracy to bootstrap themselves into power. Elections per se were never an existential threat to Khomeini's movement, or the Muslim brotherhood, or even to Putin for that matter. The ideas we want to fight today are *popular* ideas in enough places that democracy in the form of elections is no useful tool against them.

Until we can reformulate a vision of what the 'West' means that goes beyond political organization and argue our case at a more meaningful level of a life view as well as a political view, we are not going to make much further progress. But that lays bare the more fundamental problem of the poverty of any deeper unifying set of beliefs in the West today. We ourselves are living on auto-pilot/momentum from philosophies we no longer have any deep conviction in.

I think this is what folks like Romad recognize (if I may be so bold to interpret him a bit) but can end up in the thickets of religious issues trying to argue.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So is the upshot here that I should only single out people who post things I agree with? Do you do this? I think the evidence is rather strong that you single folks out quite often.

What's the overall point of this?

I think he's saying to knock off the ad hominem. If my position is different from yours, we can argue content, or we can take shots at each other. He seems to be endorsing the former, and suggesting the latter leads to eternal bickering. That's my best guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm being too retro here but I think US policy for a long time, including containment, has became an exercise in fighting ideas with organizational reform, and it turns out that only worked in the cold war accidentally. Democracy was an organizational form that defeated communism because the repudiation of the *idea* intrinsic to the negative aspect of communism - the dictatorship of the vanguard - was already baked into that particular organizational reform - elections.

But that Schema has been a manifest failure since, particularly in dealing with the Muslim world, because our ideological enemies are perfectly happy to co-opt the form of democracy to bootstrap themselves into power. Elections per se were never an existential threat Khomeini's movement, or the Muslim brotherhood, or even to Putin for that matter. The ideas we want to fight today are *popular* ideas in enough places that democracy in the form of elections is no useful tool against them.

Until we can reformulate a vision of what the 'West' means that goes beyond political organization and argue our case at a more meaningful level of a life view as well as a political view, we are not going to make much further progress. But that lays bare the more fundamental problem of the poverty of any deeper unifying set of beliefs in the West today. We ourselves are living on auto-pilot/momentum from philosophies we no longer have any deep conviction in.

I think this is what folks like Romad recognize (if I may be so bold to interpret him a bit) but can end up in the thickets of religious issues trying to argue.

Are you suggesting that you can't foist democracy onto people that have no cultural understanding of the subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting that you can't foist democracy onto people that have no cultural understanding of the subject?

Actually more or less the opposite. It's all too easy to effect an election. It just may not solve any of what we regard as the ideological pathologies of the societies with whom we find ourselves opposed.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and WHO are you again?

I'm just a guy on a message board objecting to your failure to be objective. I'm nobody, and don't pretend to be anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There thousands of US Military civil affairs officers out there who have dealt with the people on the ground in crapistan who know that these people want all the good things our society has.

India (and to a lesser extent Pakistan) actually emerged into Democracies because of 300 years of occupation by soldiers who were there to protect the mercantile class who (as an eccentric minority) decided that the locals should try out our institutions and ideals.

That story was repeated by the UN in Korea but on a shortened timeline and was much to do with the money made off Korean goods in the US market and our Cold War containment. Until Reagan (and not laying the improvements at his feet), South Korea was a very corrupt thugocracy. Now it resembles a democracy.

I've had it in my mind that the realpolitik answer to the problem lies in telling India to get off its rump and annex Afghanistan and Pakistan and to create the counter-weight to China. India has so many internal divisions now, that two more won't matter so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T....

I've had it in my mind that the realpolitik answer to the problem lies in telling India to get off its rump and annex Afghanistan and Pakistan and to create the counter-weight to China. India has so many internal divisions now, that two more won't matter so much.

I think you just lost any chance of dinner invitations from Mr Modi Romad! :laugh::silly::laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, John McCain thinks you are a coward for thinking that...

I'm pretty sure that my poor little bruised ego will recover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just a guy on a message board objecting to your failure to be objective. I'm nobody, and don't pretend to be anybody.

And where did I fail to be objective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And where did I fail to be objective?

You came into a thread about a crashed plane and the last sentence of the post was how awful the Obama administration has been (a slogan even). Wasn't even related to what is happening right now. You've lost your ability to be objective about domestic and international events because you view each incident with hate tinted glasses. A tragedy happened, you used this tragedy to create a punch line slogan for Obama, a man who you obviously hate, and everyone knows you hate.

"we’re working to determine whether there were American citizens on board." Because if there isn't, who gives a ****.

An objective person wouldn't say this. It is something you made up for yourself, driven by hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You came into a thread about a crashed plane and the last sentence of the post was how awful the Obama administration has been (a slogan even). Wasn't even related to what is happening right now. You've lost your ability to be objective about domestic and international events because you view each incident with hate tinted glasses. A tragedy happened, you used this tragedy to create a punch line slogan for Obama, a man who you obviously hate, and everyone knows you hate.

An objective person wouldn't say this. It is something you made up for yourself, driven by hatred.

Ironically shabba is mad at Obama because he didn't immediately acknowledge false information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironically shabba is mad at Obama because he didn't immediately acknowledge false information.

The reason he didn't immediately acknowledge false information (ironically, which the right cracks on him about re #Benghazi), is because he was busy selecting Shabba's prescription drug plan. Last year Obama really ****ed up what plan Shabba picked himself, and Shabba was pissed, just search it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason he didn't immediately acknowledge false information (ironically, which the right cracks on him about re #Benghazi), is because he was busy selecting Shabba's prescription drug plan. Last year Obama really ****ed up what plan Shabba picked himself, and Shabba was pissed, just search it here.

D***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks.

That argument you made on page 80 of the Obamacare thread was really bad. I'd be angry if someone dredged up really bad arguments I made too - that's why I try not to make really bad arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faux outrage requires actual outrage. I just think blaming Malaysia Airlines because they flew over Donetsk misses the entire point.

Hi Mr. Angry, how are you today?

Qantas hasn’t used the route for a few months, said Andrew McGinnes, a spokesman for the Australian carrier, while Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific said it has been detouring for “quite some time.” Korean Air Lines Co. and Asiana Airlines Inc. said in statements they have been avoiding the area since March 3.

Here is an interesting question. If Kiev had closed the airspace around Dontesk, and they control the Ukrainian airspace, then how did this flight that got shot down end up flying over closed airspace?

On July 8, Ukraine’s State Aviation Service banned all flights over the Donetsk and Luhansk regions aiming to provide “adequate safety and security for all flights of civil aircraft in favor of state aviation.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council took a decision to close the airspace over the area of the so-called anti-terror operation to commercial flights three days ago, Rosaviatsia reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


×
×
  • Create New...