Does this Crisis echo the Glorious Revolutuon?

[Marypoza]

(02-03-2017, 02:01 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:Syria is not every goddam humanitarian mess in the world; it's the worst mess in the world. It would have been wise to support the free rebels without invading or bombing.

::Facepalm:: And again. There ain't no such thing as "moderate rebels".  That's an oxymoron.

Quote: We didn't do enough. The result are problems that have affected us and helped elect a madman. And it's not Tulsi's place, therefore, to say that Assad is the president, and to say what a peace deal should be like there either, then.

Since Assad is the strongman in charge, ya gotta sometimes make deals with the devil.  Sorry, but rainbows and unicorns shitting gold bricks are rare in the real world.  

Quote:There's no use about her complaining about a USA war with Assad, or supporting terrorists fighting against him. She is trying to "fix the mess" by saying the USA should not conduct a war of choice against Assad in western Syria.

She talked with ordinary Syrians as well and they said stop meddling. That's sufficient.

Quote: It is useless, since the USA is not conducting a war of choice against Assad in western Syria.

Then what kind of war is it, bright boy?

source= http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...now-214678
BTW, I got a note from the Arab world on teh interwebs.  It's hilarious

Arab World Wrote:Dear America,
We have been watching the drama of your presidential elections with much interest and curiosity for some time now. It’s hard not to notice the many similarities between our own countries and yours. From fiery inauguration protests and bitter disputes about crowd size, to the intelligence service’s forays into politics and the rise of right-wing extremists, it appears that you are traveling very much in our direction—and at the same time, like us, becoming a curiosity for foreign correspondents trying to explain what’s happening in your region to the world. You might be distraught about where you are headed, but we aren’t! Perhaps this will be an opportunity to put our differences aside and recognize how similar we are.

Let’s start at the beginning. During the campaign we were surprised to learn of the influence that the head of the American mukhabarat (state security, i.e. your FBI) can wield over the election process, simply by choosing to pursue a certain line of investigation. As you may know, this has been a constant feature of our politics since independence. Our surprise turned to astonishment when we started to witness the blossoming feud between the then-president-elect and the American mukhabarat, another important feature of Arab politics. On top of that, we started to hear reports of foreign meddling in your elections, which some say may have influenced the result. Of course, we are quite familiar with that situation, too, not least because of the efforts of your own administrations over the decades. Yet it came as a surprise to hear talk of “foreign hands” and “secret agendas” in a country like America. We sympathize.
On the bright side, this was also the moment that the conspiracy theories started to spread. You know us; we’re quite fond of conspiracy theories—particularly when they involve plots by external powers—and consider ourselves connoisseurs of the genre. Your plots are a bit rough around the edges, we have to admit, but top marks for creativity. Was the election of Trump a Russian conspiracy? Was talk of the Russian conspiracy a liberal conspiracy to undermine Trump? Did the mukhabarat leak information to help Trump? Did the mukhabarat leak information to hurt Trump? Was media coverage of Trump’s mukhabarat conspiracy theories part of a liberal conspiracy theory to bring him down? They’re all so deliciously complex and open-ended, much like our own.
Things started to get even more interesting when your liberals started to rally around the heroic CIA branch of the mukhabarat in order to fend off the threat of extremists in power and external meddling from Russia. You will recall that we have had similar experiences in recent years in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, and we were disappointed when the world didn’t understand our position. Nonetheless, it was moving to see these public displays of affinity for state security, the enlightened guardians of the nation.
Lately, we have even started to hear rumblings about the American “deep state.” Now that’s also something we’re familiar with, and it raises so many interesting prospects. Will the deep state try to unseat the new president? Will the judiciary try to block his political program? Which side will the Army take? Will foreign correspondents start talking about the “shadow organs of the American state”? How will Hollywood, the entertainment arm of the deep state, use its power to oppose the president? We’re getting dizzy with excitement.
And by the way, speaking of the Army, while we were a little bit disappointed at first that the president doesn’t have a military background, he quickly moved to remedy that by appointing a number of generals to high-level positions within the administration. We are hoping that they will attend Cabinet meetings in their uniforms; there’s something quite reassuring about the leader of the nation being surrounded by military outfits—just consider Saddam Hussein.
Trump is clearly into big military displays. The military marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. The military flying over New York City and Washington D.C. during parades. Here’s someone who really understands how great leaders think. (We can also recommend excellent tailors to make him his own exquisite military uniforms.) Thanks to the new president, we can now use the term “American regime”; your country has fully earned the honor.
Of course, another crucial aspect to this transformation is the president’s contemptuous attitude towards the media. My, the delightful similarities. From blaming the press for engaging in secret conspiracies to undermine him to threatening their access to his White House palace to refusing to take questions from certain reporters, President Trump reminds us of several of our own leaders. In fact, an Arab leader complaining about CNN coverage is pretty much a staple of our political life.
This took an interesting turn on Saturday when the president accused the media of manufacturing his feud with the mukhabarat and his Minister of Information Mr. Sean Spicer castigated the media for reporting the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd. The not-so-veiled threats by the president and Mr. Spicer to the media are very much in the spirit of Arab governance.
We are waiting to see how exactly President Trump plans to deal with the intrusions of the meddling and irksome press. So far, he reminds us of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who perhaps more than any other leader has been leading the movement to put the press back in its place. Will he continue to follow Mr. Erdogan’s example of gradually diluting the freedom of the press or will he choose the Arab approach and replace the entire media with one or two state media organs?
The moment at which we felt real solidarity with the American people, though, was when we started hearing BBC reporters talking to your citizens with the patronizing tone they normally reserve for the Middle East. Correspondents were sent to far-flung corners of the United States to talk to farmers and factory workers to try to understand how they feel and to ask condescending questions. I’m from the British Broadcasting Corporation, are you familiar with the BBC? Where do you get your news from? Do you feel angry? Does religion play a role in how you are voting?. (The only thing missing were pictures of people with blue ink on their thumbs; please consider introducing that practice in the future.)
There was talk, too, of rural strongholds and urban bastions. Deep social and geographic divisions whose origins go back in time. They’re not quite tribal divisions, but there was more than enough religious and political sectarianism to ignite our interest. Who are the liberals and the conservatives and how did their disagreement begin? What’s the difference between alt-right and the Tea Party? What’s the origin of the schism between the neo-conservatives and paleoconservatives? Watching foreign correspondents trying to explain the differences was mesmerizing.
And then there’s the unrest. In the lead up to the inauguration, we started to hear about youth protests against the new regime. Come on! This is bordering on plagiarism now. Please write your own plots and stop borrowing ours. Although, we usually wait for leaders to take power before we start protesting; we like your preemptive revolution approach.
And the inauguration, what a spectacular show: protests, riots, tear gas—it had all the necessary ingredients of an Arab revolution. We saw pictures of broken windows at Bank of America, and a limo engulfed in flames. The Black Block apparently made an appearance. Someone burned an effigy of Mr. Trump and an American flag. (OK that was in Canada, but still). We look forward to more of those moments being captured on camera and turned into photo essays in the foreign press.



A potential new flag for the United States. | Image courtesy of the author


If you want these protests to be successful spectacles, though, here are a few crucial tips: Use social media and talk about the importance of Twitter and Facebook in spreading the protest movement. Make sure to highlight that your movement is leaderless and organic. Emphasize the fact that you don’t belong to any traditional political parties or have established ideologies. Come up with catchy slogans. And above all, make sure you stress that you are the moderates. Journalists and analysts like to hear this stuff, as we discovered during our own protests.
And be careful about receiving help from external powers. We hear that both Canada and Mexico might try to interfere in your internal politics. With the Russians already involved, this is promising to shape up into an international confrontation. Be prepared for a flood of think-pieces about whether intervention in America is right or wrong, whether regime change can come quickly or whether it will become a protracted conflict, whether a proxy war is in the cards.
A word of warning though, before embarking on this path. We tried the revolution thing ourselves, and it didn’t work out so well. Maybe you should just adapt to living in the new regime. We were always told that having a strongman in charge is the best solution for Arab countries, otherwise there would be chaos. Perhaps the American people are not ready for democracy after all. Let’s face it America, you look like an Arab country now.
Sincerely,
The Arab World
Ps. We have taken the liberty of re-designing your flag; do you like it? Also, we’re attaching an application form to the Arab League, consider joining.

Uh, Arabs y'all forgot one small item.  The US also produces lots of oil.  We're just like y'all that way too. Oh, and please send us some camels.  We have some deserts for 'em.

-- omfg!!  rofl

[Marypoza]

(02-03-2017, 01:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 12:51 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 12:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 07:12 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 04:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know who Dennis is (Kucinich? a has-been; I finally guessed since now I know you're from Ohio), but what's going on in Syria is definitely a holocaust (if not THE "holocaust"), perpetrated by a ruthless, genocidal dictator named Assad upon his people who rose peacefully against him and demanded that he help them in their economic and climate-caused distress. Instead he kills 400,000 of his people and forces most of the rest out of his country and onto the shores or terrified Europeans and paranoid Trumpians. Horrible; the worst thing since Hitler. And Tulsi simply denies it. Incredible. Insane.

-- Eric, a general rule of thumb: when ppl say the word "holocaust, the holocaust is question is usually the one that happened during WW2. So a holocaust denier (& there are plenty, but Tulsi is not among them) refers to somebody who denies that particular holocaust.   Now don't get me wrong- 400,000 ppl is a gawd-awful body count.. but nothing compared to 6 million dead bodies. Hell it ain't even 10%. The WW2 holocaust still rules. And I really wish ppl wouldn't trivialize that horror show. Same thing with calling Assad Hitler. Bad as he is, he's still eating Hitler's dust. And as for the Orange Menace.. bitch puh-leeze. 

Tulsi's not denying it. She's simply saying the Govt shouldn't be arming IS. And that any peace deal has to involve Assad. Considering he's the Syrian prez, that's just common sense

As for my homeboy Dennis, call him washed up, but l was merely stating that his progressive bona fides are not in question if you (or Odin, or anybody is doubtig Tulsi's ) he was marginalized by the Dems for being their conscience, this last census they merged his district with neighboring ones & managed to get him out of Congress 
It's possible he's positioning himself for a gubenatorial run next yr, if so that would be cool

The Trumpheads benefit greatly from Assad/Tulsi propaganda that he's fighting "terrorists" and the USA is arming them. Trumpfaces think that Syrians are terrorists and should not be allowed in. What if we had done that to the Jews in WWII? The behavior of the USA under Trump is worse by far than the behavior of the USA under FDR, even considering the camps for Japanese. 

The USA is NOT arming IS; the USA is fighting and bombing IS. She can't seem to get that obvious fact straight. That is denial big time, and a massacre of this size today is comparable to Hitler. It is a huge disaster. It is a new holocaust, and it isn't over. It's the only proper word for it. To deny it, is to deny the lessons we should have learned from THE Holocaust. To deny that the USA is helping the Free Syrian Army, and that they represent the Syrian people, is to deny that they rose up against the tyrant and were answered with murder. It is to deny the biggest war crime of our time. Tulsi is denying the biggest war crime of our time. This I cannot respect.

And Tulsi is dead wrong. She's demanding that today's Hitler be part of a "peace deal?" How insane. No peace deal can involve Assad. The only peace possible on those terms is victory by Assad, which means most of his people are dead or gone. Assad can never be the legitimate ruler of his country again. John Kerry was wise enough to see that.

Dennis was great; I went to hear him; I got to meet him and shake his hand. Sorry to say that in recent years he has increasingly devolved into conspiracy theory. He's not so cool anymore.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...syria-iraq

Eric, you're going hyperboyle again. It don't matter whether we like the asshole or not, he's head of the country & you can't cut him out of any negotiations. It would be like cutting the Donald out of any negotiations involving our country. Oh wait.. you're down with that too arentcha?

Take a chillpill & call me in the morning

It's not going to work. A chill pill won't change the facts I have known for 5 years and counting. Assad is not acceptable to the people that he murdered and forced into exile.

The Turks, Russians and Iranians are trying their hand at negotiating with the rebels and Assad. Best wishes to them. We the USA dealt ourselves out by not backing the free Syrians sufficiently to give ourselves any bargaining position. 

You can't negotiate from weakness. I have little hope for this; the best that can be hoped for is that Turkey might guarantee a small area as a safe zone for the Syrian people; a sort of Gaza Strip for the free Syrian people. I doubt either the Free Syrians nor Assad would recognize this arrangement for long, if ever.

As for Trump, I wonder if you would recognize him as "a leader to negotiate with and recognize" if he killed 20 million Americans and forced 100 million of us into exile, merely because he didn't like what we were saying. Is this possible?

-- it don't matter, Rags is right. You gotta deal with the one in charge. If you wanna deal, that is. Otherwise let IS overthrow him. But then you gotta deal with IS so *shrug*
Dunno, it's hard to tell just by reading your posts but it seems Iike you're about to pop a vein. Mebbe not. If not then nevermind

[Ragnarök_62]

Eric The Green Wrote:1. I didn't call them moderate; I called them the free Syrians. That's what they are.

They're rebels yes/no ?

Quote:2. No, this is not one of those times. In any case, this idea that Tulsi is promoting ("deal with assad") is extremely uninformed. The USA has no further ability to make ANY deals with him. We have no leverage. That's the real world, man. You can't negotiate with kumbaya and rainbows.

I don't propose deals. I just say just leave and let Russia have it. After all, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. Tulsi said work something out with Assad which is much better than attempting to get rid of IS and Assad.  <- That can't work.

Quote:3. She brought her preconceived ideas with her, and they didn't change. There's plenty of observers there who have talked with Syrians who say otherwise. I have heard and seen these Syrians many times. She is just being selective to fit her own ideas.

You're like tara.  Sources please.

Quote:4. You don't get it. There IS no such war.

You said "The USA is NOT arming IS; the USA is fighting and bombing IS. "  IS is in parts of Syria, right? Fighting and bombing are "war" to me.  We did pretty much selfsame stuff in The Vietnam WAR.

[Marypoza]

(02-03-2017, 03:10 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:1. I didn't call them moderate; I called them the free Syrians. That's what they are.

They're rebels yes/no ?

Quote:2. No, this is not one of those times. In any case, this idea that Tulsi is promoting ("deal with assad") is extremely uninformed. The USA has no further ability to make ANY deals with him. We have no leverage. That's the real world, man. You can't negotiate with kumbaya and rainbows.

I don't propose deals. I just say just leave and let Russia have it. After all, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. Tulsi said work something out with Assad which is much better than attempting to get rid of IS and Assad.  <- That can't work.

--  yep, the Einsteinian definition. Thanx Rags 

Eric Wrote:3. She brought her preconceived ideas with her, and they didn't change. There's plenty of observers there who have talked with Syrians who say otherwise. I have heard and seen these Syrians many times. She is just being selective to fit her own ideas.

& you know this how.? (& you're not being selective, btw?)

Rags Wrote:You're like tara.  Sources please

-- What Rags said

Quote:Eric-
4. You don't get it. There IS no such war.


Rags-
You said "The USA is NOT arming IS; the USA is fighting and bombing IS. "  IS is in parts of Syria, right? Fighting and bombing are "war" to me.  We did pretty much selfsame stuff in The Vietnam WAR.

-- it's a civil war. Which we need to stay the hell out of. Just like we should of stayed out of Viernam's civil war

[Eric the Green]

(02-03-2017, 03:10 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:1. I didn't call them moderate; I called them the free Syrians. That's what they are.

They're rebels yes/no ?

Rebels they are, and should be, if they have an ounce of humanity or good sense. Which they do.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:2. No, this is not one of those times. In any case, this idea that Tulsi is promoting ("deal with assad") is extremely uninformed. The USA has no further ability to make ANY deals with him. We have no leverage. That's the real world, man. You can't negotiate with kumbaya and rainbows.

I don't propose deals. I just say just leave and let Russia have it. After all, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. Tulsi said work something out with Assad which is much better than attempting to get rid of IS and Assad.  <- That can't work.

--  yep, the Einsteinian definition. Thanx Rags 

Tulsi is proposing deals, and Marypoza is proposing deals, and you are proposing deals. If you guys want to stay out, then stay the f out.

And you guys are the ones who are guilty of Einstein's definition of insanity. Fantasies do not work in international affairs.

Eric Wrote:3. She brought her preconceived ideas with her, and they didn't change. There's plenty of observers there who have talked with Syrians who say otherwise. I have heard and seen these Syrians many times. She is just being selective to fit her own ideas.

Quote:& you know this how.? (& you're not being selective, btw?)

Rags Wrote:You're like tara.  Sources please

Quote:-- What Rags said

Einstein's definition of insanity applies here. I have quoted the facts and observers over and over again here.

Quote:

Quote:Eric-
4. You don't get it. There IS no such war.


Rags-
You said "The USA is NOT arming IS; the USA is fighting and bombing IS. "  IS is in parts of Syria, right? Fighting and bombing are "war" to me.  We did pretty much selfsame stuff in The Vietnam WAR.

-- it's a civil war. Which we need to stay the hell out of. Just like we should of stayed out of Vietnam's civil war

We're not IN the civil war. We have no troops fighting Assad, we're not bombing him. Fighting the IS is a different fight. The IS is a defacto state that rules different territory. The IS conquest of eastern Syria was not a civil war; it was an invasion from outside. If we fight the IS, we are not fighting Assad. Different folks. And we have 60 allies in the fight, and Iraqis are doing the fighting. All that has been explained to you guys over and over again. You don't get it. Einstein's definition applies, if you keep denying the same facts and expect a different result.

If you want to complain about my support for the war against the IS, fine; do that. That has nothing to do with Assad or the Syrian rebels.

And by the way, thinking that every international situation is the same as another, is insane. THAT's what got us into Vietnam!

[Eric the Green]

(02-03-2017, 02:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 12:51 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 12:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 07:12 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- Eric, a general rule of thumb: when ppl say the word "holocaust, the holocaust is question is usually the one that happened during WW2. So a holocaust denier (& there are plenty, but Tulsi is not among them) refers to somebody who denies that particular holocaust.   Now don't get me wrong- 400,000 ppl is a gawd-awful body count.. but nothing compared to 6 million dead bodies. Hell it ain't even 10%. The WW2 holocaust still rules. And I really wish ppl wouldn't trivialize that horror show. Same thing with calling Assad Hitler. Bad as he is, he's still eating Hitler's dust. And as for the Orange Menace.. bitch puh-leeze. 

Tulsi's not denying it. She's simply saying the Govt shouldn't be arming IS. And that any peace deal has to involve Assad. Considering he's the Syrian prez, that's just common sense

As for my homeboy Dennis, call him washed up, but l was merely stating that his progressive bona fides are not in question if you (or Odin, or anybody is doubtig Tulsi's ) he was marginalized by the Dems for being their conscience, this last census they merged his district with neighboring ones & managed to get him out of Congress 
It's possible he's positioning himself for a gubenatorial run next yr, if so that would be cool

The Trumpheads benefit greatly from Assad/Tulsi propaganda that he's fighting "terrorists" and the USA is arming them. Trumpfaces think that Syrians are terrorists and should not be allowed in. What if we had done that to the Jews in WWII? The behavior of the USA under Trump is worse by far than the behavior of the USA under FDR, even considering the camps for Japanese. 

The USA is NOT arming IS; the USA is fighting and bombing IS. She can't seem to get that obvious fact straight. That is denial big time, and a massacre of this size today is comparable to Hitler. It is a huge disaster. It is a new holocaust, and it isn't over. It's the only proper word for it. To deny it, is to deny the lessons we should have learned from THE Holocaust. To deny that the USA is helping the Free Syrian Army, and that they represent the Syrian people, is to deny that they rose up against the tyrant and were answered with murder. It is to deny the biggest war crime of our time. Tulsi is denying the biggest war crime of our time. This I cannot respect.

And Tulsi is dead wrong. She's demanding that today's Hitler be part of a "peace deal?" How insane. No peace deal can involve Assad. The only peace possible on those terms is victory by Assad, which means most of his people are dead or gone. Assad can never be the legitimate ruler of his country again. John Kerry was wise enough to see that.

Dennis was great; I went to hear him; I got to meet him and shake his hand. Sorry to say that in recent years he has increasingly devolved into conspiracy theory. He's not so cool anymore.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...syria-iraq

Eric, you're going hyperboyle again. It don't matter whether we like the asshole or not, he's head of the country & you can't cut him out of any negotiations. It would be like cutting the Donald out of any negotiations involving our country. Oh wait.. you're down with that too arentcha?

Take a chillpill & call me in the morning

It's not going to work. A chill pill won't change the facts I have known for 5 years and counting. Assad is not acceptable to the people that he murdered and forced into exile.

The Turks, Russians and Iranians are trying their hand at negotiating with the rebels and Assad. Best wishes to them. We the USA dealt ourselves out by not backing the free Syrians sufficiently to give ourselves any bargaining position. 

You can't negotiate from weakness. I have little hope for this; the best that can be hoped for is that Turkey might guarantee a small area as a safe zone for the Syrian people; a sort of Gaza Strip for the free Syrian people. I doubt either the Free Syrians nor Assad would recognize this arrangement for long, if ever.

As for Trump, I wonder if you would recognize him as "a leader to negotiate with and recognize" if he killed 20 million Americans and forced 100 million of us into exile, merely because he didn't like what we were saying. Is this possible?

-- it don't matter, Rags is right. You gotta deal with the one in charge. If you wanna deal, that is. Otherwise let IS overthrow him. But then you gotta deal with IS so *shrug*
Dunno, it's hard to tell just by reading your posts but it seems Iike you're about to pop a vein. Mebbe not. If not then nevermind

I've been saying the same things all along for the last several years; no veins popped yet

Your sentence above merely confirms that you and Tulsi and Rags have no idea what to do about Syria and Iraq. Why not leave the situation to those that do, then; like me?

We have no cards in the Syria deal anymore; we did not enter the fight and did not sufficiently support the rebels. It's up to Russia now. So there's no reason to say that "we've got to deal with Assad" now. We have no cards to play.

Of course, speaking of cards, Trump is one, and a wild one. Only God knows what he might do. He said he wants to stay out and let Russia handle it. So we'll see. Astrologically, I don't expect another new USA war until 2025. Again, well; we'll see!

[Marypoza]

(02-03-2017, 11:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 02:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 12:51 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 12:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Trumpheads benefit greatly from Assad/Tulsi propaganda that he's fighting "terrorists" and the USA is arming them. Trumpfaces think that Syrians are terrorists and should not be allowed in. What if we had done that to the Jews in WWII? The behavior of the USA under Trump is worse by far than the behavior of the USA under FDR, even considering the camps for Japanese. 

The USA is NOT arming IS; the USA is fighting and bombing IS. She can't seem to get that obvious fact straight. That is denial big time, and a massacre of this size today is comparable to Hitler. It is a huge disaster. It is a new holocaust, and it isn't over. It's the only proper word for it. To deny it, is to deny the lessons we should have learned from THE Holocaust. To deny that the USA is helping the Free Syrian Army, and that they represent the Syrian people, is to deny that they rose up against the tyrant and were answered with murder. It is to deny the biggest war crime of our time. Tulsi is denying the biggest war crime of our time. This I cannot respect.

And Tulsi is dead wrong. She's demanding that today's Hitler be part of a "peace deal?" How insane. No peace deal can involve Assad. The only peace possible on those terms is victory by Assad, which means most of his people are dead or gone. Assad can never be the legitimate ruler of his country again. John Kerry was wise enough to see that.

Dennis was great; I went to hear him; I got to meet him and shake his hand. Sorry to say that in recent years he has increasingly devolved into conspiracy theory. He's not so cool anymore.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...syria-iraq

Eric, you're going hyperboyle again. It don't matter whether we like the asshole or not, he's head of the country & you can't cut him out of any negotiations. It would be like cutting the Donald out of any negotiations involving our country. Oh wait.. you're down with that too arentcha?

Take a chillpill & call me in the morning

It's not going to work. A chill pill won't change the facts I have known for 5 years and counting. Assad is not acceptable to the people that he murdered and forced into exile.

The Turks, Russians and Iranians are trying their hand at negotiating with the rebels and Assad. Best wishes to them. We the USA dealt ourselves out by not backing the free Syrians sufficiently to give ourselves any bargaining position. 

You can't negotiate from weakness. I have little hope for this; the best that can be hoped for is that Turkey might guarantee a small area as a safe zone for the Syrian people; a sort of Gaza Strip for the free Syrian people. I doubt either the Free Syrians nor Assad would recognize this arrangement for long, if ever.

As for Trump, I wonder if you would recognize him as "a leader to negotiate with and recognize" if he killed 20 million Americans and forced 100 million of us into exile, merely because he didn't like what we were saying. Is this possible?

-- it don't matter, Rags is right. You gotta deal with the one in charge. If you wanna deal, that is. Otherwise let IS overthrow him. But then you gotta deal with IS so *shrug*
Dunno, it's hard to tell just by reading your posts but it seems Iike you're about to pop a vein. Mebbe not. If not then nevermind

I've been saying the same things all along for the last several years; no veins popped yet

Your sentence above merely confirms that you and Tulsi and Rags have no idea what to do about Syria and Iraq. Why not leave the situation to those that do, then; like me?

-- l can't speak for Rags, but l do know what to do about Syria & lraq. They are a pair of black holes.  We should stop throwing $ into them & get as far away as possible from them


 

Eric Wrote:We have no cards in the Syria deal anymore; we did not enter the fight and did not sufficiently support the rebels. It's up to Russia now. So there's no reason to say that "we've got to deal with Assad" now. We have no cards to play.

-- all the more reason to stay the f out of it

Eric Wrote:Of course, speaking of cards, Trump is one, and a wild one. Only God knows what he might do.

-- we elected the joker in the pack lf last yr's candidates. Well somebody did, l voted Jill

Quote:] He said he wants to stay out and let Russia handle it. So we'll see

-- a broken clock is right 2x/day.1) this & 2) TPP

Eri Wrote:Astrologically, I don't expect another new USA war until 2025. Again, well; we'll see!

-- agreed

[Marypoza]

(02-03-2017, 02:11 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Yup, past time to retire bitch

http://observer.com/2017/02/nancy-pelosi...appearance

If progressives want her to retire, then they should find a suitable replacement to run against her. They didn't.

She is extremely popular in her district. To understand the vibe in that district, one would attend something like the SF Opera Gala or the SF Symphony Gala.

Rich .... international ... liberal ... cultured .... with lots of joie de vivre.

Such people won't throw her out due to the rantings of someone like Marypoza ... or even our local versions.

--& that's the problem with Congress. It has these single digit approval ratings, & everybody wants to throw the bums out, but it's always somebody elses bum. Ppl keep reelecting their bum

[Eric the Green]

(02-03-2017, 03:24 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 02:11 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Yup, past time to retire bitch

http://observer.com/2017/02/nancy-pelosi...appearance

If progressives want her to retire, then they should find a suitable replacement to run against her. They didn't.

She is extremely popular in her district. To understand the vibe in that district, one would attend something like the SF Opera Gala or the SF Symphony Gala.

Rich .... international ... liberal ... cultured .... with lots of joie de vivre.

Such people won't throw her out due to the rantings of someone like Marypoza ... or even our local versions.

--& that's the problem with Congress. It has these single digit approval ratings, & everybody wants to throw the bums out, but it's always somebody elses bum. Ppl keep reelecting their bum

Mr. X, you missed the point. The Democrats in congress choose their leader. No-one else better stepped up.

[David Horn]

(02-03-2017, 03:24 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --& that's the problem with Congress. It has these single digit approval ratings, & everybody wants to throw the bums out, but it's always somebody elses bum. Ppl keep reelecting their bumping his th mud

Of course they hate the institution, because it has no defenders. It's been dragged through the mud for decades. Their Congress-critter is another issue entirely. As a nation, we need to decide if having a Congress that was designed to be slow, tedious and intentionally conservative is still a good idea. Pelosie is the least of it's problems, though I agree she's way past her sell-by-date.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I like this article as a summary of that Crisis period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

I have come to favor the the term Internal Cold War for the USA's present 4T. One difference between now and the War Between The States-there is no issue quite as inflammatory as slavery was back then.

One issue that is salient is the populist revolt against globalization. Peter Zeihan (zeihan.com) has pointed out that the rejection of globalization now includes both the Democrats and Republicans; or to put it another way, a broad lack of support of this across the political spectrum, including groups that strongly disagree regarding domestic issues.

[David Horn]

(02-13-2019, 12:54 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I like this article as a summary of that Crisis period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

I have come to favor the the term Internal Cold War for the USA's present 4T.  One difference between now and the War Between The States-there is no issue quite as inflammatory as slavery was back then.

One issue that is salient is the populist revolt against globalization.  Peter Zeihan (zeihan.com) has pointed out that the rejection of globalization now includes both the Democrats and Republicans; or to put it another way, a broad lack of support of this across the political spectrum, including groups that strongly disagree regarding domestic issues.

I don't think globalization is the real issue.  I think the real issue is loos -- loss of status, free time, abundance or whatever other personal lack people feel in this economy and society.  Globalization is just an easy target, but less true apropos than most people believe.  In fact, I doubt you can find 5% of the population who can describe globalization in accurate terms.

[Eric the Green]

(02-14-2019, 03:01 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-13-2019, 12:54 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I like this article as a summary of that Crisis period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

I have come to favor the the term Internal Cold War for the USA's present 4T.  One difference between now and the War Between The States-there is no issue quite as inflammatory as slavery was back then.

One issue that is salient is the populist revolt against globalization.  Peter Zeihan (zeihan.com) has pointed out that the rejection of globalization now includes both the Democrats and Republicans; or to put it another way, a broad lack of support of this across the political spectrum, including groups that strongly disagree regarding domestic issues.

I don't think globalization is the real issue.  I think the real issue is loos -- loss of status, free time, abundance or whatever other personal lack people feel in this economy and society.  Globalization is just an easy target, but less true apropos than most people believe.  In fact, I doubt you can find 5% of the population who can describe globalization in accurate terms.

That's right, and when you look at the issue, and get beyond mere nationalist or racist prejudice, the issue is corporate globalization. Multi-nationals have no concern for nations or regions; they can go wherever they wish and get the cheap labor or lax rules that they want, especially under free trade. It's corporate power and their lack of responsibility to the people that is the main issue.

And since the problems they cause are global as well, like climate change and exploitation of people everywhere, the solutions must be in part global as well. So attacking globalization per se will not help anyone.

Globalization in the true sense is inevitable and can't be stopped. We are one world civilization now, and have been for over 100 years, and retrograde fondness for your nation is long out of date. Technological, cultural, economic, racial, national barriers are falling and will continue to fall. The issue is power to the people. Global power elites, mainly the multi-national corporations and the governments they bribe and control, need to be responsible to the people, and that means that the more local units of power need to remain strong. But they can no longer remain separate, just as at bottom, nothing and no-one is separate.

[Eric the Green]

Internal cold war or cold civil war is a good name for the Crisis we are in. The Glorious was a kind of civil war too. It was an internal battle between dynasties and between the king and parliament. It was the conclusion of the Great Rebellion during the 2T in which the issues were raised.

Now we have a similar battle between red and blue dynasties. This is even more like the US civil war era, the blue vs. the gray (which equals our current red). I have thought that maybe like in the Glorious, that our parliament, congress, would get more power instead of our elected king. That could still happen, but the unpopularity of congress might suggest otherwise. At the least though, many reforms to congress and elections are overdue. They might happen late in the 4T if the blue side is winning.

[pbrower2a]

The ideological polarization indeed suggests an ideological, internal Cold War. We have yet to determine whether this one will turn out well. The ideological polarization resembles that in Spain in the 1930s, and the Spanish Civil War turned out well --- if one wanted to live in a society reverted to the Middle Ages in its culture and it was wise to play dumb. Spain was a great place to visit on a cheap holiday because labor was cheap and servile.

[beechnut79]

(02-15-2019, 09:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The ideological polarization indeed suggests an ideological, internal Cold War. We have yet to determine whether this one will turn out well. The ideological polarization resembles that in Spain in the 1930s, and the Spanish Civil War turned out well --- if one wanted to live in a society reverted to the Middle Ages in its culture and it was wise to play dumb. Spain was a great place to visit on a cheap holiday because labor was cheap and servile.

Did that mean that the cost of food and lodging there at the time was cheap also?

[pbrower2a]

(02-15-2019, 04:09 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-15-2019, 09:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The ideological polarization indeed suggests an ideological, internal Cold War. We have yet to determine whether this one will turn out well. The ideological polarization resembles that in Spain in the 1930s, and the Spanish Civil War turned out well --- if one wanted to live in a society reverted to the Middle Ages in its culture and it was wise to play dumb. Spain was a great place to visit on a cheap holiday because labor was cheap and servile.

Did that mean that the cost of food and lodging there at the time was cheap also?

Much of the cost of a hotel stay reflects the cost of labor, whether of construction work (construction labor is incredibly cheap in some countries) to build it or of the cost of staffing a hotel with cleaners and desk clerks  whose pay typically reflects the living standards.

At one time a fitting joke about Spain was "What do you call a successful Spaniard not born into wealth and privilege?"

French!

..If you wonder why France recovered from its huge losses of manpower after the World Wars -- it was immigration from poorer countries like Spain and Portugal.

[Bill the Piper]

Yes there is political polarisation, but BOTH sides are rotten.

The "right" side, Republicans in the US and Brexiteers in the UK, used to stand for Christian morality but now only stands for tribalism, selfishness and toxic masculinity. They even use phrases like "low testosterone" as insults.

The "left" side stands for cultural relativism and nature worship in domestic policy, as well as appeasement of enemies of civilization in foreign policy.

A third side, one devoted to civilized values, would be necessary. Such a party would combine the moral sensitivity of old Christian right and economic policies of better sort of centre-left. It's not going to arise before the end of the millennial cycle, since there are few people with such views. Thus my preferred outcome is that the worst aspects of the right and the left cancel each other.

[Eric the Green]

(02-17-2019, 06:48 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Yes there is political polarisation, but BOTH sides are rotten.

The "right" side, Republicans in the US and Brexiteers in the UK, used to stand for Christian morality but now only stands for tribalism, selfishness and toxic masculinity. They even use phrases like "low testosterone" as insults.

The "left" side stands for cultural relativism and nature worship in domestic policy, as well as appeasement of enemies of civilization in foreign policy.

A third side, one devoted to civilized values, would be necessary. Such a party would combine the moral sensitivity of old Christian right and economic policies of better sort of centre-left. It's not going to arise before the end of the millennial cycle, since there are few people with such views. Thus my preferred outcome is that the worst aspects of the right and the left cancel each other.

There are crazies on the left. But that is where a salvageable civilization lies for the future.

I don't know what you mean by nature worship in domestic policy, but the need to change our energy system and live in harmony with Nature, and see it as sacred in all ways, is job one if civilization is to have a future at all. Many moderate centrists also understand the need for action by the government against pollution and climate change and the creation of a civilization that is sustainable. Most of the world's nations are on board with this. Opposition to such actions as the Paris 2015 agreement is extreme right-wing destruction, and is rotten to the core!

"Relativism" has its pitfalls in many respects. "Social justice warriors" can be annoying, especially when they are reverse tribalists of left-identity politics who only care about the "rights" of their own group. But on a broader-based level, the left is correct that all people deserve their rights. As you implied, the alternative is right-wing tribalism.

If cultural relativism reduces the perceived value of fine arts to the lowest common denominator, for material gain or for some distorted sense that everyone's taste, imagination and craftsmanship are "equal," or that the value of art is to be decided by its ethnic identity, then I dissent from this sort of relativism.

However, all cultures and their peoples have their right to exist in peace as long as they don't break the laws, which are based on moral values. I dissent from any idea that such moral values are relative to time, evolution or culture. Their articulation in specific lists and rules may change, but not their essence.

But I don't think that such aesthetic or moral relativism is a prominent feature of the Left in politics. So I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you adwvocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

The USA ought not to be involved in wars of choice for regime change. It does not have the right to overthrow other governments. But working in concert with other nations, the USA can exert its influence to protect allies, defend itself when attacked, and support movements for liberation financially, if and when asked by those movements and not otherwise, and only if this support can be distinguished from US goals of economic or corporate gain. I think that's a good balance between intervention and isolationism, with a preference for the latter in accordance with the belief that wars are inherently evil and outdated, and that we should move in the direction of world peace and balanced local and global governance, but without naivete or closeted isolationist nationalism.

[Marypoza]

(02-18-2019, 03:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-17-2019, 06:48 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Yes there is political polarisation, but BOTH sides are rotten.

The "right" side, Republicans in the US and Brexiteers in the UK, used to stand for Christian morality but now only stands for tribalism, selfishness and toxic masculinity. They even use phrases like "low testosterone" as insults.

The "left" side stands for cultural relativism and nature worship in domestic policy, as well as appeasement of enemies of civilization in foreign policy.

A third side, one devoted to civilized values, would be necessary. Such a party would combine the moral sensitivity of old Christian right and economic policies of better sort of centre-left. It's not going to arise before the end of the millennial cycle, since there are few people with such views. Thus my preferred outcome is that the worst aspects of the right and the left cancel each other.

There are crazies on the left. But that is where a salvageable civilization lies for the future.

I don't know what you mean by nature worship in domestic policy, but the need to change our energy system and live in harmony with Nature, and see it as sacred in all ways, is job one if civilization is to have a future at all. Many moderate centrists also understand the need for action by the government against pollution and climate change and the creation of a civilization that is sustainable. Most of the world's nations are on board with this. Opposition to such actions as the Paris 2015 agreement is extreme right-wing destruction, and is rotten to the core!

"Relativism" has its pitfalls in many respects. "Social justice warriors" can be annoying, especially when they are reverse tribalists of left-identity politics who only care about the "rights" of their own group. But on a broader-based level, the left is correct that all people deserve their rights. As you implied, the alternative is right-wing tribalism.

If cultural relativism reduces the perceived value of fine arts to the lowest common denominator, for material gain or for some distorted sense that everyone's taste, imagination and craftsmanship are "equal," or that the value of art is to be decided by its ethnic identity, then I dissent from this sort of relativism.

However, all cultures and their peoples have their right to exist in peace as long as they don't break the laws, which are based on moral values. I dissent from any idea that such moral values are relative to time, evolution or culture. Their articulation in specific lists and rules may change, but not their essence.

But I don't think that such aesthetic or moral relativism is a prominent feature of the Left in politics. So I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you adwvocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

The USA ought not to be involved in wars of choice for regime change. It does not have the right to overthrow other governments. But working in concert with other nations, the USA can exert its influence to protect allies, defend itself when attacked, and support movements for liberation financially, if and when asked by those movements and not otherwise, and only if this support can be distinguished from US goals of economic or corporate gain. I think that's a good balance between intervention and isolationism, with a preference for the latter in accordance with the belief that wars are inherently evil and outdated, and that we should move in the direction of world peace and balanced local and global governance, but without naivete or closeted isolationist nationalism.

-- Eric, l think that as the Millies bcome more & more influential in the Govt & the Silents & then Boomers die off, this neolib crap will die off with them