7 ms·

Withdrawal from the TPP gives China the opportunity to take the lead in those regions. Xi understood this and is taking full advantage: https://www.ft.com/cont

Withdrawal from the TPP gives China the opportunity to take the lead in those regions. Xi understood this and is taking full advantage: https://www.ft.com/content/8662c3b6-a72b-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1 https://www.ft.com/content/8662c3b6-a72b-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd...

Analemma_ 10y ago
We were told by the Very Smart People we had to go into Vietnam, because otherwise Domino Theory assured that the Communists would take over the world. We lost Vietnam, and tens of thousands of lives, and nothing happened. We were told by the Very Smart People that we had to invade Iraq, because otherwise the Islamists would consolidate control over the region. We invaded, and not only did we not prevent that outcome, we actually caused it. I didn't even vote for Trump, but the one thing I'll side with him on is that I'm quite sick of being told that we have to take this or that self-destructive action for the sake of defeating the foreign-boogeyman-du-jour.
- mikeash 10y ago
  The Very Smart People said that invading Iraq was idiotic and would cause chaos throughout the Middle East. They were right. The people advocating invasion did so on the basis that their WMD program represented a threat to the world. They were obviously full of crap to anyone paying attention at the time.
- travmatt 10y ago
  I didn't really make any value judgements, simply described what's happening in the world. >We were told by the Very Smart People we had to go into Vietnam, because otherwise Domino Theory assured that the Communists would take over the world. We lost Vietnam, and tens of thousands of lives, and nothing happened. Please stop trying to dramatize reality. The truth is that withdrawing from a multilateral 'trade' deal has consequences, and those are worth analyzing. >We were told by the Very Smart People that we had to invade Iraq, because otherwise the Islamists would consolidate control over the region. We invaded, and not only did we not prevent that outcome, we actually caused it. I don't really understand what you're saying, to be honest - are you talking about the Iraq War, like the one that happened in '03? Do you think that's the reason that was cited, or the motivation of the administration? >I didn't even vote for Trump, but the one thing I'll side with him on is that I'm quite sick of being told that we have to take this or that self-destructive action for the sake of defeating the foreign-boogeyman-du-jour. Funnily enough, Trump gave up a great piece of leverage and instead needs to resort to threats ('China wont go into the north china sea', recognizing Taiwan). So the net result in the change in relations is much less effective and much riskier leverage.
- ggreer 10y ago
  > We were told by the Very Smart People that we had to invade Iraq, because otherwise the Islamists would consolidate control over the region. We invaded, and not only did we not prevent that outcome, we actually caused it. This is incorrect. The primary justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein's regime had WMDs, and that his WMD programs were a growing threat to the region and the world. The majority of Americans thought that invading Iraq would increase the terror threat to the US.[1] 1. In a CBS/NYTimes poll, 62% of those polled said that if the US took military action vs. Iraq, the threat of terror would increase. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-talk-first-fight-later/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-talk-first-fight-later/
  - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
    The fear of those polled was that Bin Laden's Al Qaeda would seek vengeance for an attack on Iraq. That's because the Bush administration successfully promoted the lie that Saddam was buddies with Bin Laden despite the fact that the latter publicly denounced the former for running a secular state and actively suppressing Islamist ambitions.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Nope, the plan to invade Iraq was created before 9/11 and information was faked to get us to go to war. No smart people told us we should go, it was only Bush, Cheney, etc. The smart people worldwide were pretty much all in agreement about what a bad idea it was. > We invaded, and not only did we not prevent that outcome, we actually caused it. Well yeah, who thinks you bring peace with war? There are ways we could have taken over Iraq peacefully, such as making it a protectorate and giving everyone health care (which would have been far cheaper than the war). In fact, what you're saying is the second half of the traditional "We have to do something, and this is something, so we have to do this." fallacy. "Well, if bombing the the ungrateful fuckers didn't make them love us we're out of here." No, you've got a lot of shit to fix before you get to quit.
  - tmuir 10y ago
    As insane as it sounds, the brutality and extreme loss of life in the Battle of Okinawa was a deciding factor in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to wikipedia, every male citizen over the age of 18 died over the course of the 82 day battle. Over 20,000 American soldiers died, and somewhere between 75,000-110,000 Japanese and Okinawan soldiers died. The argument is that a land invasion would have resulted in far more than the 129,000 people killed by the two bombs.
    - dingaling 10y ago
      The use of nuclear weapons wasn't expected to end the war; in fact even after Nagasaki the invasion of Kyushu was planned to be supported by at least seven such bombs, which were to be used to destroy beach defences and defenders. More were needed for the final jump to Tokyo. Later it emerged that it was actually the Soviet delcaration of war on the 8th August that was the deciding factor for surrender; the Japanese had stocked around 10,000 aircraft in Manchuria which were now under threat and they couldn't fight a two-front war. Yes, the two bombs ultimately saved untold thousands lives but that was more accidental than deliberate.
      - tmuir 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Analemma_ 10y ago

We were told by the Very Smart People we had to go into Vietnam, because otherwise Domino Theory assured that the Communists would take over the world. We lost Vietnam, and tens of thousands of lives, and nothing happened. We were told by the Very Smart People that we had to invade Iraq, because otherwise the Islamists would consolidate control over the region. We invaded, and not only did we not prevent that outcome, we actually caused it. I didn't even vote for Trump, but the one thing I'll side with him on is that I'm quite sick of being told that we have to take this or that self-destructive action for the sake of defeating the foreign-boogeyman-du-jour.

mikeash 10y ago
The Very Smart People said that invading Iraq was idiotic and would cause chaos throughout the Middle East. They were right. The people advocating invasion did so on the basis that their WMD program represented a threat to the world. They were obviously full of crap to anyone paying attention at the time.
travmatt 10y ago
I didn't really make any value judgements, simply described what's happening in the world. >We were told by the Very Smart People we had to go into Vietnam, because otherwise Domino Theory assured that the Communists would take over the world. We lost Vietnam, and tens of thousands of lives, and nothing happened. Please stop trying to dramatize reality. The truth is that withdrawing from a multilateral 'trade' deal has consequences, and those are worth analyzing. >We were told by the Very Smart People that we had to invade Iraq, because otherwise the Islamists would consolidate control over the region. We invaded, and not only did we not prevent that outcome, we actually caused it. I don't really understand what you're saying, to be honest - are you talking about the Iraq War, like the one that happened in '03? Do you think that's the reason that was cited, or the motivation of the administration? >I didn't even vote for Trump, but the one thing I'll side with him on is that I'm quite sick of being told that we have to take this or that self-destructive action for the sake of defeating the foreign-boogeyman-du-jour. Funnily enough, Trump gave up a great piece of leverage and instead needs to resort to threats ('China wont go into the north china sea', recognizing Taiwan). So the net result in the change in relations is much less effective and much riskier leverage.
ggreer 10y ago
> We were told by the Very Smart People that we had to invade Iraq, because otherwise the Islamists would consolidate control over the region. We invaded, and not only did we not prevent that outcome, we actually caused it. This is incorrect. The primary justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein's regime had WMDs, and that his WMD programs were a growing threat to the region and the world. The majority of Americans thought that invading Iraq would increase the terror threat to the US.[1] 1. In a CBS/NYTimes poll, 62% of those polled said that if the US took military action vs. Iraq, the threat of terror would increase. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-talk-first-fight-later/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-talk-first-fight-later/
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  The fear of those polled was that Bin Laden's Al Qaeda would seek vengeance for an attack on Iraq. That's because the Bush administration successfully promoted the lie that Saddam was buddies with Bin Laden despite the fact that the latter publicly denounced the former for running a secular state and actively suppressing Islamist ambitions.
EdHominem 10y ago
Nope, the plan to invade Iraq was created before 9/11 and information was faked to get us to go to war. No smart people told us we should go, it was only Bush, Cheney, etc. The smart people worldwide were pretty much all in agreement about what a bad idea it was. > We invaded, and not only did we not prevent that outcome, we actually caused it. Well yeah, who thinks you bring peace with war? There are ways we could have taken over Iraq peacefully, such as making it a protectorate and giving everyone health care (which would have been far cheaper than the war). In fact, what you're saying is the second half of the traditional "We have to do something, and this is something, so we have to do this." fallacy. "Well, if bombing the the ungrateful fuckers didn't make them love us we're out of here." No, you've got a lot of shit to fix before you get to quit.
- tmuir 10y ago
  As insane as it sounds, the brutality and extreme loss of life in the Battle of Okinawa was a deciding factor in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to wikipedia, every male citizen over the age of 18 died over the course of the 82 day battle. Over 20,000 American soldiers died, and somewhere between 75,000-110,000 Japanese and Okinawan soldiers died. The argument is that a land invasion would have resulted in far more than the 129,000 people killed by the two bombs.
  - dingaling 10y ago
    The use of nuclear weapons wasn't expected to end the war; in fact even after Nagasaki the invasion of Kyushu was planned to be supported by at least seven such bombs, which were to be used to destroy beach defences and defenders. More were needed for the final jump to Tokyo. Later it emerged that it was actually the Soviet delcaration of war on the 8th August that was the deciding factor for surrender; the Japanese had stocked around 10,000 aircraft in Manchuria which were now under threat and they couldn't fight a two-front war. Yes, the two bombs ultimately saved untold thousands lives but that was more accidental than deliberate.
    - tmuir 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]