12 ms·

Good. I don't know how much longer Americans are going to buy the boogiemen we keep getting fed. Sovereign nations under the the U.S.' thumb, not being able to

Good. I don't know how much longer Americans are going to buy the boogiemen we keep getting fed. Sovereign nations under the the U.S.' thumb, not being able to control their own destiny only works so long as we're complacent. I sense we're growing tired of war for war's sake, leery of ideological battles built for future blowback down the road. We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured. I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts. I don't see this having a ton of impact on U.S. relations other than a few terse, typo-laden tweets directed at Europe, but who knows these days. The notion that Western alliances are being intentionally weakened no longer seems far fetched.

grecy 8y ago
I agree. I keep hearing the most wonderful things about the people of Sudan, I can't wait to get there soon and discover for myself!
- smashcash 8y ago
  The fact that some boogiemen are not as terrible as portrayed, or that we shouldn't put too much effort to go after them, does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    There's the fact that nobody appointed them the global cops in charge of boogiemen. There's also the fact that more often than not, they act based on internal power plays and national interests of its own, and not for some "greater good". There's also the fact that they have fucked up tons of countries with their interventions -- 4 countries in the last 20 years ago, turning relatively stable regimes into hell-holes of civil war, mayhem, and terrorism. Not to go into how they have been historically worse than the boogiemen they complain about (from funding dictators, to directly invading countries, toppling democratically elected leaders, and so on).
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sadris 8y ago
      Actually the world appointed them overlords in the Bretton Woods agreement.
  - nkozyra 8y ago
    > does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice. reply I think that goes without saying. But after fighting ideological / proxy wars against communism, "terrorism" and "hell, just because" I think we need a little more support. Here we have a long-standing soft war against a country and/or people for whom Western meddling has demonstrably affected their life for the worse. Every time they do anything acting in their own sovereign interest we peg it as evil and impose some wrist-slapping or worse. I don't for one second believe that the leadership of Iran is "good." Nor do I believe they're inherently evil. We refuse to concede any responsibility in the fate of their land over the last 100 years, continue to box them in and it seems more and more apparent we're keeping them on the hotplate in case we need a new war. I have a pretty skeptical view of lower-case-l libertarians, most of whom are just using it as a veneer over some otherwise lockstep partisan affiliation. But one thing I've found very encouraging is that movement's general cynicism toward continued world power interventionism.
- skh 8y ago
  I think you misunderstood the ...start asking for receipts part of nkozrya’s comment. nkozrya is not suggesting that U.S. politician’s are never correct in their assessment of evil. nkozrya is suggesting that they aren’t always right. This is hardly a controversial point. Believing otherwise is dangerous. It is critical that we trust but verify claims of our leaders.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >nkozrya is suggesting that they aren’t always right. Even more so, there are all kinds of "national interests" political/cultural biases, and even personal interests (e.g. Cheney and Halliburton) mixed in their assessments. They're not some disinterested third parties trying to make the fairest assessment possible for the benefit of mankind, but agents of a top world dog nation-state wanting to get more resources and control, and to further its own prospects.
  - chmod775 8y ago
    Your parent wasn't being sarcastic. Check his profile.
    - skh 8y ago
      I don’t normally check profiles before responding to comments. It appeared to be sarcasm to me. Sudan does have problems (both North and South) and U.S. politicians have commented upon them. Thanks for letting me know. And that last sentence wasn’t sarcasm on my part!
      - nkozyra 8y ago
        The danger of the exclamation point!
- kevinconaway 8y ago
  Isn’t this the guy driving all over Africa in his converted Jeep? I wouldn’t be surprised if he is being sincere about visiting Sudan
  - sjclemmy 8y ago
    Looking at his map[1], I think you are correct. He's in Kenya heading toward Sudan. Probably giving South Sudan [2] a wide birth though. 1 http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview 2 https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/south-sudan/safety-and-security https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/south-sudan/safety-...
  - yoz-y 8y ago
    It would appear so. Text again proves to be a poor medium to convey emotions
- chris_overseas 8y ago
  I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I returned from Sudan recently [0] and it is a fascinating country full of wonderful people and rich in culture - you will love visiting there! The Sudanese continue to suffer badly economically however, partly as a result of being on the US "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list [0] even though I firmly believe they no longer deserve to be there. Sudan still has many problems to tackle aside from this, but the US continuing to keep them on the terror list is without doubt only serving to make things worse. Inflation is a huge problem in Sudan, largely brought on due to a lack of foreign exchange and trade (I had to take in enough USD to cover my entire trip). During my two week visit the Sudanese pound was devalued 39% overnight [2] and prices for common items rose noticeably during my stay. I came away feeling a huge amount of empathy for the locals who are finding it increasingly difficult to even afford basics such as bread there. [0] https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10156632235706760&type=1&l=bbb9623198 https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10156632235706760&... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U.S._list)#Sudan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-07/sudan-revalues-exchange-against-u-s-dollar-to-47-5-from-29 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-07/sudan-rev...
  - close04 8y ago
    I guess the votes come based on whether you assume he's being serious or sarcastic and the current opinion you hold of Sudan. It is hard to judge when made over an impersonal channel like a plain text comment and most people won't check grecy's profile to draw the correct conclusion: not a trace of sarcasm.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gadders 8y ago
Iran is a radical islamic theocracy that hangs gay people and exports terrorism to the rest of the Middle East in the form of Hamas and Hezbollah. They also want to wipe Israel from the map and are trying to build nuclear weapons. We need more sanctions, not less.
- srean 8y ago
  I believe I spy a fly in the ointment there -- Saudi Arabia, where some of these hold true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” -- from emails leaked from the office of Hillary Clinton, who was US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
- broahmed 8y ago
  Just going to pick on a few things you mentioned: The Iranian people overthrew the shah who ruled for ~38 years and whom the US supported, and seemed to choose theocracy. (I say "seemed" because I'm sure there are two sides to the story. From the little reading I've done, it seems there was significant support for the theocracy.) They now hold elections, though I don't know how free of meddling they are. So they've gone from a US-supported dictatorship, a feeling much of the Middle East and Latin Americas knows, to a partially democratic theocracy. Negative attitudes towards homosexuality are common across the Middle East; they're not unique to Iran. Neither are negative attitudes towards Israel. I don't know enough about Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran supposedly building nuclear weapons to comment, so I won't. For those interested, I highly recommend reading Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East"[0]. The author was in Iran during the revolution which overthrew the Shah and offers a fascinating perspective into the Iranian people. The rest of the book is proving to be amazing too! [0] https://smile.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173/ https://smile.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Mid...
  - arminiusreturns 8y ago
danra 8y ago
> I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts. Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same. I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way, and believe there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east, which they do not take. I consider our own prime minister a thoroughly evil man. But the fact remains that Iran’s own statements and actions are extreme.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same. You do realize this rhetoric goes both ways, right? Israeli politicians often make genocidal statements towards other countries including Lebanon, Palestine and Iran, so spare me this crying. Iran may have rhetoric, but Iran isn't occupying anyone. The same cannot be said for Israel. In fact when there is a terrorist attack in the US, Iran tends to condemn it, despite the non-existent relations, whereas US lawmakers say "Iran deserves it", when the same happens over there. As for sponsoring terrorism; Israel has been proven to be shipping weapons to Islamic radicals in Syria, is increasingly buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia & the UAE, commits regular war crimes, including in other countries etc., so again, spare me. > I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way That's great, however from my personal observation, what "left-wing" means in Israel is much more to the right than in other parts of the world. In fact you've fallen for right-wing talking points, it seems. > there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east There's no threat from Iran to other nations that I could see, do they perhaps have some proxy forces? Sure. Does Israel? Sure. Does the U.S. Sure, exponentially more. Do the Saudis and Emiratis? You bet. As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran, apart for deflection purposes, it's not a great regime, but not worse than the 75% of the world's dictatorships the U.S. does support. For the US I at least get it more; control of their resources, for the Saudis and to a lesser extent the Emiratis, it also has a religious angle, but for Israel, it seems to be purely for propaganda purposes. P.S. Am not even going to get into Israelis smearing anyone critical of Israeli policies as an anti-Semite, which is not only reprehensible, but it also assumes that the Israeli government speaks for all Jews, which is itself rather anti-Semitic if you ask me.
cletus 8y ago
This is going to be the really unfortunate legacy of Trump: disastrous foreign policy and the loss of soft power. 1. Denial of Russia's meddling in US election because it runs counter to Trump's ego and he had a weird soft spot for autocrats. 2. The baseless termination of the Iran nuclear Accord as essentially a capitulation to Israel and Israeli interests. There was no violation of the agreement. The best the administrative could come up with was that Iran was violating the "spirit" of the agreement with actions that took place prior to it. WTF? 3. Giving North Korea a pass, a country that actually has unchecked nuclear ambitions and a deplorable human rights record. 4. Giving Saudi Arabia a pass on killing a US permanent resident in Turkey (Trump asked on camera "he's not a citizen right?"). Why? Because they're an ally. Why exactly is that? Well because of Iraq. Why was Iraq an enemy? Well because of Iran. Why was Iran an enemy? Well because we incited a revolution there to remove a democratically elected government leading to a hardline religious revolution so they didn't like is. Then we propped up a dictator and supplied him with arms, commenting a war that killed millions. Yeah ok. But hey MBS is another Putin in the making so that's fine. Honestly the only bright spot in this (and there really is one) is that China's misdeeds seem to be getting called out. Anyway the whole Iran thing just makes me angry. The best thing we could do there is work towards normalization is relations. Three internal politics were slowly becoming more moderate. Isolating them gives more power to the hardliners. But that's really the story of the disproportionate power Israel has over US foreign policy. Gone are the days when Eisenhower told them to get the hell out of Sinai.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  Let's keep this straight: Saudi Arabia is an ally because, and for as long as, they happily do their oil business in USD, which does a lot to underpin the USD as a driver in the global economy as a whole.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Not going to war with N. Korea, Russia and Saudi Arabia is a good thing. Trump has lessened tensions, he should get credit for that. As an American, I don't want to fight a war with these countries. I agree with you on Iran for the same reasons though.
shmerl 8y ago
Yeah, trading with a fascist regime must be good.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tomp 8y ago
  Has not trading with "evil" regimes done any good? 50 years later, Cuba still exists, and so does North Korea...
  - misja 8y ago
    But the Apartheid regime in South Africa has collapsed, and so have (most) communist totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe.
    - tomp 8y ago
      Was that because of trade sanctions, or because the regimes were (internally) unsustainable? (Honest question, I'm not old enough to know.)
      - misja 8y ago
        The first US Sanctions against South Africa took into effect in 1986, 5 years later the Apartheid system was ended. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_A...
- srean 8y ago
  US certainly did not show any shyness in doing exactly that. http://www.derechos.org/soa/ http://www.derechos.org/soa/ Training manual for the school of the Americas http://www.soaw.org/docs/SOA%20Manejo%20de%20Fuentes%201-60.pdf http://www.soaw.org/docs/SOA%20Manejo%20de%20Fuentes%201-60.... https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/opinion/school-of-the-dictators.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/opinion/school-of-the-dic... I understand that dictatorship != fascism.
dfxm12 8y ago
We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured. I hope we stop buying in. We, the people, are pretty powerless here. Lobbyists and elected officials have too much power and election cycles are too far apart. So even when recent American military action gets relatively low support from Americans [0], neither congress nor the president has any motivation to do anything about it. 0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/208334/support-syria-strikes-rates-low-historical-context.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/208334/support-syria-strikes-ra...
- josho 8y ago
  You’ve forgotten how to protest. I recall you guys getting pretty upset over some tea with Britain. Seriously as long as folks are content at home the politicians won’t give a damn about you. Go march in the streets en mass and things will slowly change.
  - mont 8y ago
    Are you implying that putting some filter over my facebook picture isn't an effective method of protest?
    - becomingknown 8y ago
      Perhaps you forgot to put /s.
    - wonthegame 8y ago
      You raised awareness. (Slightly sarcasm)
      - johannes1234321 8y ago
        Not only that, but you are also signalling to your environment that thy are not alone. That's also a key factor in many demonstrations.
  - dfxm12 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Zenst 8y ago
No when somebody says something that does not ring 100% TRUE, you question it and have a look into it yourself with multiple sources from contrasting perspectives. But equally, you can't presume innocence as that's just as bad as presuming guilty.
porpoisely 8y ago
We are going to keep buying the boogeyman as long as the media and politicians sells it to us. One of the only things both republicans and democrats can agree on is war. They will debate and argue about children drinking lead in Flint, but bombing some small country on the other side of the world and increasing the defense budget and lining the pockets of the defense contractors will always have bipartisan support. One of the only things both foxnews and cnn/msbnc/nytimes/wapo/etc can agree on is war. They'll call each other fake news and poison the minds of the american people with divisive rhetoric for ratings, but when it comes to war, they'll set aside their differences and speak in one united pro-war voice.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  > We are going to keep buying the boogeyman as long as the media and politicians sells it to us. That's the saddest part. The media is the one entity theoretically equipped to shine light on these things. And it's just fallen down hill in a race to the bottom the last two decades. And for that we must also place some blame on ourselves. We're less and less likely to support good journalism and gravitate to fluff and fake(-able) news ("Who needs newspapers? I get my news from Twitter"). We cannot shift blame exclusively outwards. We are not discerning consumers of information.

grecy 8y ago

I agree. I keep hearing the most wonderful things about the people of Sudan, I can't wait to get there soon and discover for myself!

smashcash 8y ago
The fact that some boogiemen are not as terrible as portrayed, or that we shouldn't put too much effort to go after them, does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice.
- coldtea 8y ago
  There's the fact that nobody appointed them the global cops in charge of boogiemen. There's also the fact that more often than not, they act based on internal power plays and national interests of its own, and not for some "greater good". There's also the fact that they have fucked up tons of countries with their interventions -- 4 countries in the last 20 years ago, turning relatively stable regimes into hell-holes of civil war, mayhem, and terrorism. Not to go into how they have been historically worse than the boogiemen they complain about (from funding dictators, to directly invading countries, toppling democratically elected leaders, and so on).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sadris 8y ago
    Actually the world appointed them overlords in the Bretton Woods agreement.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  > does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice. reply I think that goes without saying. But after fighting ideological / proxy wars against communism, "terrorism" and "hell, just because" I think we need a little more support. Here we have a long-standing soft war against a country and/or people for whom Western meddling has demonstrably affected their life for the worse. Every time they do anything acting in their own sovereign interest we peg it as evil and impose some wrist-slapping or worse. I don't for one second believe that the leadership of Iran is "good." Nor do I believe they're inherently evil. We refuse to concede any responsibility in the fate of their land over the last 100 years, continue to box them in and it seems more and more apparent we're keeping them on the hotplate in case we need a new war. I have a pretty skeptical view of lower-case-l libertarians, most of whom are just using it as a veneer over some otherwise lockstep partisan affiliation. But one thing I've found very encouraging is that movement's general cynicism toward continued world power interventionism.
skh 8y ago
I think you misunderstood the ...start asking for receipts part of nkozrya’s comment. nkozrya is not suggesting that U.S. politician’s are never correct in their assessment of evil. nkozrya is suggesting that they aren’t always right. This is hardly a controversial point. Believing otherwise is dangerous. It is critical that we trust but verify claims of our leaders.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >nkozrya is suggesting that they aren’t always right. Even more so, there are all kinds of "national interests" political/cultural biases, and even personal interests (e.g. Cheney and Halliburton) mixed in their assessments. They're not some disinterested third parties trying to make the fairest assessment possible for the benefit of mankind, but agents of a top world dog nation-state wanting to get more resources and control, and to further its own prospects.
- chmod775 8y ago
  Your parent wasn't being sarcastic. Check his profile.
  - skh 8y ago
    I don’t normally check profiles before responding to comments. It appeared to be sarcasm to me. Sudan does have problems (both North and South) and U.S. politicians have commented upon them. Thanks for letting me know. And that last sentence wasn’t sarcasm on my part!
    - nkozyra 8y ago
      The danger of the exclamation point!
kevinconaway 8y ago
Isn’t this the guy driving all over Africa in his converted Jeep? I wouldn’t be surprised if he is being sincere about visiting Sudan
- sjclemmy 8y ago
  Looking at his map[1], I think you are correct. He's in Kenya heading toward Sudan. Probably giving South Sudan [2] a wide birth though. 1 http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview 2 https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/south-sudan/safety-and-security https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/south-sudan/safety-...
- yoz-y 8y ago
  It would appear so. Text again proves to be a poor medium to convey emotions
chris_overseas 8y ago
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I returned from Sudan recently [0] and it is a fascinating country full of wonderful people and rich in culture - you will love visiting there! The Sudanese continue to suffer badly economically however, partly as a result of being on the US "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list [0] even though I firmly believe they no longer deserve to be there. Sudan still has many problems to tackle aside from this, but the US continuing to keep them on the terror list is without doubt only serving to make things worse. Inflation is a huge problem in Sudan, largely brought on due to a lack of foreign exchange and trade (I had to take in enough USD to cover my entire trip). During my two week visit the Sudanese pound was devalued 39% overnight [2] and prices for common items rose noticeably during my stay. I came away feeling a huge amount of empathy for the locals who are finding it increasingly difficult to even afford basics such as bread there. [0] https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10156632235706760&type=1&l=bbb9623198 https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10156632235706760&... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U.S._list)#Sudan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-07/sudan-revalues-exchange-against-u-s-dollar-to-47-5-from-29 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-07/sudan-rev...
- close04 8y ago
  I guess the votes come based on whether you assume he's being serious or sarcastic and the current opinion you hold of Sudan. It is hard to judge when made over an impersonal channel like a plain text comment and most people won't check grecy's profile to draw the correct conclusion: not a trace of sarcasm.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gadders 8y ago

Iran is a radical islamic theocracy that hangs gay people and exports terrorism to the rest of the Middle East in the form of Hamas and Hezbollah. They also want to wipe Israel from the map and are trying to build nuclear weapons. We need more sanctions, not less.

srean 8y ago
I believe I spy a fly in the ointment there -- Saudi Arabia, where some of these hold true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” -- from emails leaked from the office of Hillary Clinton, who was US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
broahmed 8y ago
Just going to pick on a few things you mentioned: The Iranian people overthrew the shah who ruled for ~38 years and whom the US supported, and seemed to choose theocracy. (I say "seemed" because I'm sure there are two sides to the story. From the little reading I've done, it seems there was significant support for the theocracy.) They now hold elections, though I don't know how free of meddling they are. So they've gone from a US-supported dictatorship, a feeling much of the Middle East and Latin Americas knows, to a partially democratic theocracy. Negative attitudes towards homosexuality are common across the Middle East; they're not unique to Iran. Neither are negative attitudes towards Israel. I don't know enough about Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran supposedly building nuclear weapons to comment, so I won't. For those interested, I highly recommend reading Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East"[0]. The author was in Iran during the revolution which overthrew the Shah and offers a fascinating perspective into the Iranian people. The rest of the book is proving to be amazing too! [0] https://smile.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173/ https://smile.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Mid...
- arminiusreturns 8y ago

danra 8y ago

> I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts. Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same. I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way, and believe there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east, which they do not take. I consider our own prime minister a thoroughly evil man. But the fact remains that Iran’s own statements and actions are extreme.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same. You do realize this rhetoric goes both ways, right? Israeli politicians often make genocidal statements towards other countries including Lebanon, Palestine and Iran, so spare me this crying. Iran may have rhetoric, but Iran isn't occupying anyone. The same cannot be said for Israel. In fact when there is a terrorist attack in the US, Iran tends to condemn it, despite the non-existent relations, whereas US lawmakers say "Iran deserves it", when the same happens over there. As for sponsoring terrorism; Israel has been proven to be shipping weapons to Islamic radicals in Syria, is increasingly buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia & the UAE, commits regular war crimes, including in other countries etc., so again, spare me. > I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way That's great, however from my personal observation, what "left-wing" means in Israel is much more to the right than in other parts of the world. In fact you've fallen for right-wing talking points, it seems. > there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east There's no threat from Iran to other nations that I could see, do they perhaps have some proxy forces? Sure. Does Israel? Sure. Does the U.S. Sure, exponentially more. Do the Saudis and Emiratis? You bet. As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran, apart for deflection purposes, it's not a great regime, but not worse than the 75% of the world's dictatorships the U.S. does support. For the US I at least get it more; control of their resources, for the Saudis and to a lesser extent the Emiratis, it also has a religious angle, but for Israel, it seems to be purely for propaganda purposes. P.S. Am not even going to get into Israelis smearing anyone critical of Israeli policies as an anti-Semite, which is not only reprehensible, but it also assumes that the Israeli government speaks for all Jews, which is itself rather anti-Semitic if you ask me.

cletus 8y ago

This is going to be the really unfortunate legacy of Trump: disastrous foreign policy and the loss of soft power. 1. Denial of Russia's meddling in US election because it runs counter to Trump's ego and he had a weird soft spot for autocrats. 2. The baseless termination of the Iran nuclear Accord as essentially a capitulation to Israel and Israeli interests. There was no violation of the agreement. The best the administrative could come up with was that Iran was violating the "spirit" of the agreement with actions that took place prior to it. WTF? 3. Giving North Korea a pass, a country that actually has unchecked nuclear ambitions and a deplorable human rights record. 4. Giving Saudi Arabia a pass on killing a US permanent resident in Turkey (Trump asked on camera "he's not a citizen right?"). Why? Because they're an ally. Why exactly is that? Well because of Iraq. Why was Iraq an enemy? Well because of Iran. Why was Iran an enemy? Well because we incited a revolution there to remove a democratically elected government leading to a hardline religious revolution so they didn't like is. Then we propped up a dictator and supplied him with arms, commenting a war that killed millions. Yeah ok. But hey MBS is another Putin in the making so that's fine. Honestly the only bright spot in this (and there really is one) is that China's misdeeds seem to be getting called out. Anyway the whole Iran thing just makes me angry. The best thing we could do there is work towards normalization is relations. Three internal politics were slowly becoming more moderate. Isolating them gives more power to the hardliners. But that's really the story of the disproportionate power Israel has over US foreign policy. Gone are the days when Eisenhower told them to get the hell out of Sinai.

InitialLastName 8y ago
Let's keep this straight: Saudi Arabia is an ally because, and for as long as, they happily do their oil business in USD, which does a lot to underpin the USD as a driver in the global economy as a whole.
malvosenior 8y ago
Not going to war with N. Korea, Russia and Saudi Arabia is a good thing. Trump has lessened tensions, he should get credit for that. As an American, I don't want to fight a war with these countries. I agree with you on Iran for the same reasons though.

shmerl 8y ago

Yeah, trading with a fascist regime must be good.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tomp 8y ago
Has not trading with "evil" regimes done any good? 50 years later, Cuba still exists, and so does North Korea...
- misja 8y ago
  But the Apartheid regime in South Africa has collapsed, and so have (most) communist totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Was that because of trade sanctions, or because the regimes were (internally) unsustainable? (Honest question, I'm not old enough to know.)
    - misja 8y ago
      The first US Sanctions against South Africa took into effect in 1986, 5 years later the Apartheid system was ended. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_A...
srean 8y ago
US certainly did not show any shyness in doing exactly that. http://www.derechos.org/soa/ http://www.derechos.org/soa/ Training manual for the school of the Americas http://www.soaw.org/docs/SOA%20Manejo%20de%20Fuentes%201-60.pdf http://www.soaw.org/docs/SOA%20Manejo%20de%20Fuentes%201-60.... https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/opinion/school-of-the-dictators.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/opinion/school-of-the-dic... I understand that dictatorship != fascism.

dfxm12 8y ago

We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured. I hope we stop buying in. We, the people, are pretty powerless here. Lobbyists and elected officials have too much power and election cycles are too far apart. So even when recent American military action gets relatively low support from Americans [0], neither congress nor the president has any motivation to do anything about it. 0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/208334/support-syria-strikes-rates-low-historical-context.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/208334/support-syria-strikes-ra...

josho 8y ago
You’ve forgotten how to protest. I recall you guys getting pretty upset over some tea with Britain. Seriously as long as folks are content at home the politicians won’t give a damn about you. Go march in the streets en mass and things will slowly change.
- mont 8y ago
  Are you implying that putting some filter over my facebook picture isn't an effective method of protest?
  - becomingknown 8y ago
    Perhaps you forgot to put /s.
  - wonthegame 8y ago
    You raised awareness. (Slightly sarcasm)
    - johannes1234321 8y ago
      Not only that, but you are also signalling to your environment that thy are not alone. That's also a key factor in many demonstrations.
- dfxm12 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Zenst 8y ago

No when somebody says something that does not ring 100% TRUE, you question it and have a look into it yourself with multiple sources from contrasting perspectives. But equally, you can't presume innocence as that's just as bad as presuming guilty.

porpoisely 8y ago

We are going to keep buying the boogeyman as long as the media and politicians sells it to us. One of the only things both republicans and democrats can agree on is war. They will debate and argue about children drinking lead in Flint, but bombing some small country on the other side of the world and increasing the defense budget and lining the pockets of the defense contractors will always have bipartisan support. One of the only things both foxnews and cnn/msbnc/nytimes/wapo/etc can agree on is war. They'll call each other fake news and poison the minds of the american people with divisive rhetoric for ratings, but when it comes to war, they'll set aside their differences and speak in one united pro-war voice.

nkozyra 8y ago
> We are going to keep buying the boogeyman as long as the media and politicians sells it to us. That's the saddest part. The media is the one entity theoretically equipped to shine light on these things. And it's just fallen down hill in a race to the bottom the last two decades. And for that we must also place some blame on ourselves. We're less and less likely to support good journalism and gravitate to fluff and fake(-able) news ("Who needs newspapers? I get my news from Twitter"). We cannot shift blame exclusively outwards. We are not discerning consumers of information.