USA Politics

If the European powers had decided to honour their promises to the Arab world and help them create Arab-run states, we'd be in a much different world today.
 
LooseCannon said:
If the European powers had decided to honour their promises to the Arab world and help them create Arab-run states, we'd be in a much different world today.
Click to expand...
I'm confused... Aside from Israel, aren't they all Arab run states? That's the problem, all those Arab neighbors don't want Israel to exist at all, right?
 
Onhell said:
I'm confused... Aside from Israel, aren't they all Arab run states? That's the problem, all those Arab neighbors don't want Israel to exist at all, right?
Click to expand...
If the Arab-Israeli conflict was the only problem in the Middle East, things would be so much simpler ... still not simple (because that conflict is more complex than Starblind and The Fugitive combined), but simpler.
 
Onhell said:
How did the US come out on top in 1991? All they did was scare Hussein back to Iraq, but lied to the Iraqi people, promising liberation and then turning their back on them which, of course, bit them in the ass the second time around.
Click to expand...

Unlike Vietnam they did at least have a clearly defined set of targets that they managed to achieve. (even if it did just boil down to "remove Iraq from Kuwait")

That being said, it was such a one-sided affair they didn't really have any excuse not to win
 
Zare said:
Middle East is pretty simple. It was Ottoman for centuries. It was Ottoman for so long, that what was before them isn't of any relevancy. Once Ottomans were in decline, Euros sat down and agreed on how to exploit the resources. That is the #1 and only source of today's issues.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple.

*cracks knuckles*

Ottoman power in the Middle East had already been falling apart throughout the 19th century. In the 1830s, Egypt revolted and took control over a large part of the Levant for a while. They were driven back, but ever since, Egypt had only been nominally part of the Ottoman Empire. A lot of local rulers in the Middle East took inspiration from that. In the latter half of the 19th century, Kurdish emirs began extending their power, terrorising Christians and Turcomans in the process. The Ottoman rulers were virtually powerless, which led to the formation of nationalist Turkish groups such as the Young Turks, who wanted ethnically cleansed or segregated rule over the Middle East. On their model, groups such as the Young Kurds formed. The Ottomans let them go ahead, because the Kurds promised to make war on the Armenians, whom they suspected of being Russian allies, and had actually already gotten to the first step of genocide before the First World War started. The Arabs in the penninsula were restless and ready to revolt, only lacking the resources. There were movements for Armenian, Kurdish, Arab and Turcoman national states long before Sykes and Picot sat down to draw lines on a map. There were repeatedly pogroms and massacres against Christians, Yezids and other non-orthodox Muslims, mostly conducted by the Kurds. The Ottomans were already sitting on a powder keg, and if anything, European involvement actually helped contain it for a few decades, albeit at the price of oppression and dictatorship, and probably a much larger explosion that we are currently witnessing.
Nowadays, a lot of Turks and Muslims are looking at the Ottoman Empire with rose-tinted glasses, because they were an independent Muslim state that was eventually conquered by European powers. But truth be told, very few people in the Middle East shed a tear for the Ottomans when they disappeared, and to Arabs, they had always been foreign occupation.

Onhell said:
I'm aware that the UK and France, mainly, carved up the old ottoman power, as always, in their interest, but... My confusion lies in what do you mean by Arab run? You mean free of European puppets?
Click to expand...

In the First World War, the Allies had promised the Arabs a single, independent national state that would include all Arab territories. When the war ended, they immediately broke that promise by splitting up this territory into European colonies and installed rulers who were at their mercy, not determined by the people. Many of those rulers remained in power after independence was formally granted, some countries are still ruled by their descendants.
 
They put their muppets in power and therefore it was not Arab run. Something like Batista in Cuba.
 
The Kurds didn't help the US in WW2, therefore the US isn't obliged to help them now ...

By that logic, the countries the US should really be grateful to are Russia (as successor of the Soviet Union) and China, considering what those countries sacrificed during WW2.

But if you ask Trump, all the other countries probably brought themselves into trouble before the USA came to the rescue.
 
Couldn't watch the debate last night but after catching some soundbites and reading recaps, it sounds like Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar had really good nights. I can't see the needle moving all that much, but man I wish the moderate/establishment wing of the party would coalesce around one of these two candidates (preferably Klobuchar). Even though they're to my right ideologically, they're great communicators and would be effective leaders. Way better candidates (and less of a liability) than Biden.

My hope is that Warren takes the nomination and taps Pete for VP.
 
Call me a pessimist, but I see Trump taking this election as well. From a friend on the right he says the only candidate that will convince moderate Republicans to vote Democrat is Biden. As you just said and we've seen recently he's a huge liability. Even without the allegations against his son for corruption in the Ukraine, he has other problems like his inappropriate hugs. I like a lot of the candidates, but the party looks too divided and the strong candidates, Biden, Sanders and Warren won't take it. I already expressed Bidens problems, Sanders is ancient, he could die in office, physical/mental health aside, he no longer has the wow factor of 2016, the field caught up. Warren... She puts people off which I think is absolutely retarded to judge a candidate on. But most folks do vote for who they want to have a beer with and nobody wants to have a beer with their old school teacher.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I dunno, there are several of my old teachers I could imagine having a beer with. None of those are of the Warren type though :cheers:
Click to expand...
I was going to make a joke about the teachers who have gone to prison for having sex with their students, but no need. I do keep in touch with a couple of my old professors, but overall it's not a thing.
 
Onhell said:
Call me a pessimist, but I see Trump taking this election as well. From a friend on the right he says the only candidate that will convince moderate Republicans to vote Democrat is Biden. As you just said and we've seen recently he's a huge liability. Even without the allegations against his son for corruption in the Ukraine, he has other problems like his inappropriate hugs. I like a lot of the candidates, but the party looks too divided and the strong candidates, Biden, Sanders and Warren won't take it. I already expressed Bidens problems, Sanders is ancient, he could die in office, physical/mental health aside, he no longer has the wow factor of 2016, the field caught up. Warren... She puts people off which I think is absolutely retarded to judge a candidate on. But most folks do vote for who they want to have a beer with and nobody wants to have a beer with their old school teacher.
Click to expand...
I think Trump has the edge due to incumbency and an electoral map that favors Republicans. These are two “conventional” factors. But it’s a very slight edge and there are a lot of things working against him.

I definitely understand being pessimistic after 2016, but I also think it’s important to look at hard facts and data to understand how Trump could win or lose. The same could’ve been done in 2016 to predict a Trump victory.

The worst thing Democrats could do is try to win over moderate republicans. Those voters don’t really exist in terms of a dem coalition. Even with Biden, Trump and the GOP will spend all of their resources smearing Biden to the point where moderate Republicans either stay home or don’t vote. What Democrats need to do is focus on turnout. There’s a large enough voting population for them to win every time, but it’s a lot more difficult to get those people to vote. Just a few differences in turnout in a few states would’ve given Hillary the presidency.
 
Civil rights icon and Baltimore rep Elijah Cummings died last night. He became a major force in the political sphere toward the end of his life after being antagonized by Trump several times. His legacy will not just be that of a civil rights trailblazer, but one who continued the fight until the very last minute. I’m reminded of an old proverb:
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
 
Yet another election starting up .. seems like there are 2 to 4 a year depending on the year ... 10 state constitutional amendments. All are pretty non controversial, shockingly I think I will vote in favor of 8 or 9 of the 10 (undecided on 1 of them) .. an all time record for me
 
Impeachment considers apace.

If Donald Trump withheld aid to Ukraine to gain an advantage against a domestic political enemy, it's the greatest abuse of power in American history. They've been saying that a lot of late, but I think it's really true. Nixon didn't impede the flow of money ordered by Congress in order to screw up the Democrats, for example. The Teapot Dome Scandal was nothing like this, either.

A decorated member of the US Military today said that there were important omissions from the "transcript" of the infamous Trump-Zelensky call, and that he fought to have them reinstated but was overruled.

Last week the Ambassador to Ukraine said that there was a clear quid pro quo for the release of military aid to Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top