Random Politics & Religion #00

Take back Alanis Morissette too then.

No, she's already applied for American citizenship.

You have to legally deny her that before we'll consider it.

Got nothing on my opinion on the issue then?

...***

They go hand in hand. US policy influences regional politics and regional politics affects US policy. Duh.

Again, I ask what the gameplan is here, how are we funding it and what is the endgame. How would a Conservative president approach this and win? At least the nonsensical answers about nuking the Middle East give the answer that given the internet, everyone turns into a homicidal maniac.

Don't worry, if we take Beiber we can trade him, Cruz and Morissette to Australia for Hugh Jackman and a draft pick to be named later.

You keep missing my post...

This is in response to Nausi's dumb as ***ideas.

Although it took some pushing, you at least provided *some* of the answers asked for. TO a more than reasonable degree, and even admitted to not knowing anyone currently, who could fit the bill as a "real leader" among us politicians.

/clap.

I am under the assertion that a real leader is not somebody who volunteers into a position, but somebody who's pushed into it instead.

And yes, I got that from a Harry Potter book. But it makes absolute sense >.>

That legitimately wasn't there before!

I suppose we could just wait for ISIS to start sending dirty bombs and suitcase nukes over here through our wide open southern border before we started fighting them. I'm sure there's no harm in that.

And to elaborate, other than myself, I don't know of anyone who can direct US foreign policy in a manner worthwhile and not afraid of taking blame when blame is due.

Politicians are never leaders, they are greedy ***. And in order for my idea to work, it requires real leadership, not somebody who's only out for himself.

Let's put lordgrim up to the task, he's obviously not in it for himself!

Secondly, in regards to politicians, I agree. Politicians are career statesmen who are no longer in it for the people.

This has been true since Andrew Jackson's tenure as president. The unfortunate side is that we can't push people to become president. They have to *want* to be the guy everyone loves/hates regardless of political standing, policies, or swimsuit picture competitions with Russia's leader.

FDR united the nation though, through tough times, and tried (and failed) to implement policies to help stimulate the economy back on track. If it wasn't for WWII, he would have been considered one of the worst presidents in history though.

Well, worst in terms of effectiveness that is.

But I'm honestly interest in anyone's analysis of my idea. So far, BR is the only one who commented on it >.>

I know it's not the best, and I'm open for anyone to improve on it.

I'm not ego-shy.

Or Plato.

FDR enacted the policy to close off borders to force people to buy locally made American goods, stimulating the economy during periods of war, and allowed women to work in factories and such while the men were shipped off to fight, correct?

While there is current backlash on those policies, they did work at the time.

I'm unaware of closing borders, I know there was a special tariff in place on foreign goods though.

Comparing another invasion of Syria/Iraq to America pre-WWII is not symmetric. American citizens are not committed that hard to fighting against ISIS and the country is war weary and concerned about their own stock as we've thrown trillions on precieved losses.

America coming out of WWII prospered precisely because Eurasia suffered. What did we gain from Iraq? Pols saying it was a waste of time. A populace who pays only lip service to guys who went there and what was the victory?

I mean, those same policies of his wouldn't work now, because of current tech and product demand, as well as availability, and the use of the internet.

But at the time it also forced business owners to find ways to increase consumer trust, otherwise the whole thing would have fallen apart, and you'd all be Canadians.

This is why I was asking for a correction if it was wrong.

Not all history books are made equal, and we have an outside perspective.

Yes, I understand that going to Iraq in the first place was a waste of time, but damn it, we *** up their entire country, let's at least put it to right somewhat and give them the chance to screw it up themselves instead of screwing it up for them and abandoning it.

We gained nothing from Iraq, we will continue to not gain anything as long as conflict keeps up there. But if we enable them to solve their own problems themselves instead of giving up at the first sign of resistance, then at least we can prevent more waste in the future when we have to bail them out again....or bail out the region period.

Make the rest of the world self-sufficient so we don't have to police the world, let regions deal with each other themselves. I think that's the best solution going forward.

Perish the thought!

There in lies another problem: People expect the US to solve all their problems. Especially the third world countries that *can't* solve it themselves, and would end up buckling, giving up necessary territory, etc. to people who *could* and *would* use it against the US in the future.

Foreign policy is a *** to navigate, no matter how good you, or anyone else thinks they are at it.

How does the US go about making these places self-sufficient? It would take decades of involvement, even in the places that haven't already been *** up by war, poverty, or previous US intervention, and Trillions of dollars more the country can't afford.

Many people at the state dept are far more versed than we are and regardless of who the figurehead is, plenty of them have decades of experience understand the nuance of the regions they're tasked with knowing back and front. The problem is in the politics and how one applies this knowledge to RL. You can have the best plan but if the people aren't for it, it isn't going anywhere.

Who do you think draws up those briefing packets? Who compiles all that information on what ISIS controls, what teh political situation is on the ground etc etc.


Even if we theoretically took back ISIS held parts of Iraq which would require some type of ground commitment (see: Americans are not about this), the war torn nature of Syria would mean they'd retreat back into that country or attempt to leak into Turkey. We'd need to address Syria if you mean to stem ISIS. Thats another conflict with its own can of worms.

The religious divide is a major part of why ISIS has gained so much ground. Sunnis do not trust the Shiites so when savior ISIS shows up, they fold in. Then they get exposed to brutal crackdowns and want out but... thats a different story.


Training wont mean ***without actually physically supporting those guys on the ground. The Kurds were our best bet because they actually had the will to fight. We've trained all right, trained ISIS to pick up our weapons and continue a slow crawl towards Baghdad.

Also, why would you trust the Americans when they have to leave again? And when they leave, thus crawls back in those old divides ISIS has been ripely exploiting. Iraq isn't the US, people don't think of their country in the way you/i do. Corruption is what festers and reveals the Iraqi government for what it really is: ineffectual.


Just off the bat, Nigeria didn't want our help against Boko Haram and spreading forces out means you weaken yourself overall. You can commit guns and training to other countries but that's the stuff of proxy wars and creating your future enemies a la the Taliban. Boko Haram is smaller potatoes anyway, they aligned with ISIS for a reason. Beat ISIS, Boko Haram becomes less emboldened.


The ME is a huge place, with lots of players and moving parts. You've got Saudi Arabia and Iran vying for regional influence. At best we could push out ISIS from the region or damage them but this would mean war. And I don't think America is committed to another conflict where our skin is in the game.


Finally something approaching a real answer.

Other than Central Africa, there's regional allies who would also lose more in these nations taking over smaller countries and using the resources against the US.

Central Africa though....*** either way.

And we come back full circle. We didn't achieve victory, remember Obama lied? There was no safe and secure Iraq, victory was thrown away. We were walking towards it and we said, "*** this". Now everything we spent all that money on is all but gone, BECAUSE we left.

So, we'll continue to pay the fight lip service. ISIS will get stronger, cause what's stopping them? They'll eventually get hold of some serious ***and they will ship it over here and blow up a city with it.

Frame it any way you like, the American people wanted out of Iraq and that was bipartisan. The Iraqis wanted us out. It's their country and they have the right to tell us when to go.

The American people, soldiers, and their families, as well as politicians, once they realized what a clusterfuck the ongoing war was without any progress to show for it, wanted out.

Simple as that. Liberals didn't want people dying. Conservatives didn't want to fund a war that wasn't going to end, and bankrupt the country.

Simple.

Say it with me now...


S
I
m
p
l
e
.

So now they wanted us out and Obama didn't lie? You're switching talking points.

We did set em up with some pretty unreasonable conditions and refused to negotiate on them.

Again Germany, Korea, we're still there. We saw the value in staying what almost 70 years later now? Obama made that call for Iraq. History will not be kind.