4 ms·

Huh? I mean bush was still reelected 2 twice. You are comparing a war that started 2 years ago to one that that lasted twenty years, obviously they'd get more e

Huh? I mean bush was still reelected 2 twice. You are comparing a war that started 2 years ago to one that that lasted twenty years, obviously they'd get more eyes on the problem. At this same stage during the Iraq war (2 years in), bush was very popular, his Congress support was as strong as it ever was and he got reelected. In both cases, the war had massive support in its domestic population, patriotism clichés were used to drum up support etc. It doesn't matter if there is a better separation of power in theory in this case, since it didn't prevent half a million to a million people from dying due to the Iraq war. It only matters for Americans so that they can feel better about their institutions

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> doesn't matter if there is a better separation of power in theory in this case, since it didn't prevent half a million to a million people from dying due to the Iraq war Yes, war is bad. That doesn’t mean all wars are the same, nor that nothing can be learned from them. Comparing the checks and balances on the Kremlin with those on the American President is wrong; it creates a world model which won’t make good predictions.
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  I'm obviously not saying they are the same. I'd still take the american system 100% of the time, no hesitation. My point is that said system becomes much more similar to say, the Kremlin when it comes to foreign wars since they both basically have full support at home so democracy isn't especially relevant. Sure, that support then dies down usually but Americans and Russians seem to have a history of supporting wars with no hesitation. That makes the usual massive advantages of an American system based on separation of powers much less important. So my point is that at the end of the day, for the people on the receiving end of those wars, they don't really see the difference and aren't protected by an American style system. If anything, it gives the veneer of "good intentions", whereas the Russian Kremlin doesn't. So it makes stuff like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, wars based on lies etc go unpunished. No one sanctions the US for example.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> doesn't matter if there is a better separation of power in theory in this case, since it didn't prevent half a million to a million people from dying due to the Iraq war Yes, war is bad. That doesn’t mean all wars are the same, nor that nothing can be learned from them. Comparing the checks and balances on the Kremlin with those on the American President is wrong; it creates a world model which won’t make good predictions.

mardifoufs 3y ago
I'm obviously not saying they are the same. I'd still take the american system 100% of the time, no hesitation. My point is that said system becomes much more similar to say, the Kremlin when it comes to foreign wars since they both basically have full support at home so democracy isn't especially relevant. Sure, that support then dies down usually but Americans and Russians seem to have a history of supporting wars with no hesitation. That makes the usual massive advantages of an American system based on separation of powers much less important. So my point is that at the end of the day, for the people on the receiving end of those wars, they don't really see the difference and aren't protected by an American style system. If anything, it gives the veneer of "good intentions", whereas the Russian Kremlin doesn't. So it makes stuff like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, wars based on lies etc go unpunished. No one sanctions the US for example.