Here we go again, Syria

[Pali]

8 hours ago, f0xx said:

This makes no sense.... Hamas work with Syrian gov. to fight Isis. It's normal to have an HQ in Damascus. HQ gets hit by US/France/UK missiles. Hamas condemns the strikes.

Why would that surprise you?

It would surprise me that they wouldn't note that it was their own building that was hit.  The strike was supposed to be against the Assad govt., not against Hamas, and Hamas would absolutely make use of the PR bonanza being the accidental target of a Western attack would bring.

 

8 hours ago, f0xx said:

How can you say that mate? Basically, you say truth is irrelevant? And all that matters is "if the justification is view as valid?"

I'm not saying it is irrelevant in an absolute sense, I'm saying that the generally accepted narrative of what happened is what will drive international reactions whether that narrative is true or false.  IIRC you're a 9/11 truther to some extent - but did the truth as you see it there have any impact at all on how countries reacted to the US response to 9/11?  Or did countries react to US actions based on the narrative that Al Qaeda attacked the US and was being sheltered in Afghanistan?

 

Truth matters in international affairs, but only if it can be conclusively demonstrated with hard evidence.  If the US, UK, and France all say "We think X happened" and no one has hard evidence against X having happened, most of the West is going to act on the international level as if X is true.  It actually being true doesn't matter, it being accepted as true is what matters.  In this case X is that Assad used chemical weapons and they wanted to punish him a bit for doing so, and most of the world is going to accept that narrative.

[Fool_Hardy]

I would totally read the manifesto of Groucho Marx.

I would read that sh^t over and over.

 

[f0xx]

7 hours ago, Pali said:

It actually being true doesn't matter, it being accepted as true is what matters.

 

Doesn't that bother you though?

You basically take the stance that you don't give a f* because it doesn't matter. In reality, your opinion is all that matters. My opinion doesn't matter, because I am not a US citizen. Yours, Erelei's, Zrothum's matter, because you are US citizens, and you are the greatest force that can keep your country's behaviour in check.

If you do not show your dissatisfaction with this "manufactured" truth, and the actions that follow it, then nothing will change indeed.

 

 

[Fool_Hardy]

The trouble with that @f0xx is that while we have an opinion and we attempt to choose the best representatives that we can from those we are given to choose from. Our opinions become less and less important when compared to the opinions of those who lobby for the politicians vote and back their opinions with campaign funding. 

A small boy on a television show called Occupy Wall Street once wore a T-Shirt that I believe said it best. The system isn't broke, it's fixed.

I believe this to be the single biggest fallacy in the world, that the American people support their leaders. Most American politicians win their positions with less than half of their constituent's votes. Yet, when I read news from other countries, they always paint the US people with the colors of their current leaders. The entire world watched the last election and knows how close it was, yet somehow they wish to say all Americans believe as Trump seems to.

We make people take a test to prove they can drive safely, some food chains test people to be sure they can count change properly. But no one believes we should test people on their knowledge of the candidates before we give them the power to vote. A bad driver might kill a few hundred people, a bad teller might make people poorer, a bad politician can do both and more.

[English lad]

Winners dont see a reason to change. Currently the DNC and the GOP have a monopoly in politics, and they have no reason to change because voters vote  R or D because of a feeling of identity not due to policy or issues. Repeal citizens united, get rid of the electoral college, allow multiparty voting via run off (like the French system) and you might have a chance of democracy.

However neither the DNC or the GOP are going to be willing to give up their monoploy, so how you get that stuff passed is beyond me. Welcome to the united oligarchy of America.

[Magick]

[Pali]

6 hours ago, f0xx said:

Doesn't that bother you though?

You basically take the stance that you don't give a f* because it doesn't matter.

Where did I say I don't care?  Of course I prefer politics to be as reality-based as possible.  That is why I'm recommending that no one buy into the hype from various media outlets, including social media like Youtube which has the exact same profit incentives in favor of sensationalism and laziness the "mainstream media" does, because they are spinning narratives too.

 

6 hours ago, f0xx said:

If you do not show your dissatisfaction with this "manufactured" truth, and the actions that follow it, then nothing will change indeed.

Respectfully, but we've had enough discussions regarding international affairs that you should know that what you think is the truth and what I think is the truth regarding many situations tends to be fairly distinct - to put it delicately, we seem to have different vetting processes for our sources, which makes agreeing on the facts difficult.  I wasn't looking to argue about whether or not Syria actually used chemical weapons or whether the US/UK/French strike was justified, I was only saying that no one should expect this to cause a war regardless of the facts on the ground. edit: In short, I don't know that there actually is good reason to dispute the official narrative so far on this one, but I didn't care to argue that point here.

[Imoutgoodbye]

There is a historical precedent here that I'd like to point out which leans in favor of us going to war, though, hopefully not.

Any sitting Republican president who has gone to war before the next election cycle in which they can gain another 4 years has a tendency to bolster nationalism and patriotism, winning the election.  Bush played it well going into the 2004 election.  Trump's entire narrative is based upon these ideologies and his WWE like stare downs, catch phrases, and alpha male pacing/stalking resonates well with his voter base and if the American public were given a "bad guy" that needs taken down without serious repercussion (starting a war with China or Russia would be too much).  

I'm dumb founded that all this actually works.  😕

[Pali]

7 minutes ago, Valek said:

Any sitting Republican president who has gone to war before the next election cycle in which they can gain another 4 years has a tendency to bolster nationalism and patriotism, winning the election.

"Any" in this case really means "the one time where it did happen", which was W.  HW fought a very successful war and lost re-election.  Reagan didn't really have a war during his first term (unless you count the War on Drugs), nor did Ford (who also lost his bid), while Nixon was re-elected after drawing down involvement in Vietnam.  LBJ (a Democrat) got us into Vietnam and lost because of it.  At this point we're over 50 years in the past, which is where I start being hesitant to claim anything as a modern trend.

[Fool_Hardy]

Read this years ago, had to dig it back up.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU49ve7b_aAhWG1IMKHerLDl4QFghTMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthebaffler.com%2Flatest%2Fdemocrats-are-the-real-party-of-war&usg=AOvVaw3kzgZiPLIs2hY0inQXmVkg

If you believe we would not have launched missiles if Hillary had won the election, you really do place too much faith in one man's power to make a difference.

Its not about Right or Left, and contrary to what the campaign speech said, its not about making America Great Again either.

[Pali]

They're also the party of fiscal responsibility.  Republicans being budget-friendly hawks and Democrats being overspending bleeding hearts are generally accepted beliefs, but neither are true - at least not when phrased in such simplistic terms.

[Imoutgoodbye]

You got me.  I didn't look further back.  I'm not familiar with the cultural issues that were in play before the 90's and I'm not bothering to do any more research than I have to right now.  

I called Bush, though, and I'm looking to call this one, too, especially if the Democrats dig up another weak candidate like Kerry.

EDIT:  But I need to digress because I'm pulling us way too far off topic.  

[Pali]

On 4/16/2018 at 8:25 PM, Valek said:

I'm not familiar with the cultural issues that were in play before the 90's and I'm not bothering to do any more research than I have to right now.  

I called Bush, though, and I'm looking to call this one, too, especially if the Democrats dig up another weak candidate like Kerry.

So you were wrong, but still right? 

 

Don't get me wrong, Trump may well survive his first term and win a second by running on xenophobia against a shitty Democratic candidate - but the parallel to that win wouldn't be W's 2004 win.  It would be Trump's first win, and he doesn't need a war to make it happen again any more than he did the first time.  He just needs a politically exhausted country that has largely given up, because then the 30-35% of the country that actually supports him will easily outvote the 65% that largely doesn't show up.

 

Kerry was actually a damn fine candidate.  He wasn't charismatic - and Clinton couldn't claim to be any more so - and Kerry at least wasn't hated by half the country (including many on the left).  He had a distinguished war record, hardly any personal scandals, and a long and successful political career.  He was a political centrist with a strong history of working with Republicans, but still had an activist background from his protesting Vietnam after serving there.  Aside from the lack of charisma and having married a very rich woman, Kerry was a dream candidate by standard reckonings (and the rich wife was more a pro/con situation than a true drawback).

 

edit; And while I've got plenty of issues with his presidency, it's worth noting that W put serious effort into NOT running on xenophobia.  He ran on war, yes, but he ran on (at least what was claimed to be) a war of self-defense (Afghanistan) and a war that was part self-defense-by-stopping-WMDs-spreading, part-spreading-democracy-to-the-oppressed, part protecting-targets-of-genocide (Iraq) - not wars based on national pride or identity or ethnicity or religion, but wars of protection and liberation.  This may sound like just using different words to justify the same acts, but it really isn't.  Crossing the line to do something you believe is horrible but necessary is a very different act than crossing the same line because you want to hurt the other person; one is an act born of perceived necessity, and the other is an act of cruelty and hatred.  Even if the perception is wrong and the victim of the act is innocent, the motive - and the likelihood of repeating the act - is dramatically different.  The US didn't really need to go into Afghanistan or Iraq to protect itself from calamity, but enough people believed it did that it was a move those in power could justify making.  If the next moves we make are claimed necessary to support less noble causes yet still gain sufficient support that those in power can make them?  Then we will have truly lost our way.

 

The narrative isn't bullshit.  It is the wind deciding what course a country will take because it decides how many people will get on board.  It may lack true substance, but it is what actually moves the ship of state.  Change the wind, and the direction we move will change as well.

[Imoutgoodbye]

In the future tense, yes, I say I'm still right lol.  

I'm familiar with the principles of pragmatism and I voted for W both times.  Charismatic I don't put too much stock in (it's subjective, even if the intangible is supposedly measurable by popularity polls, this just makes it democratically subjective).  Unfortunately the narratives on both sides have terrible holes and extremism seems to be running all around, i.e., we have liberals yelling at a Starbucks barista for being ethically implicit simply by virtue of working there, but the same liberal thought process allows the uncoupling of Beyonce from her money scandal.  I can't fathom it.  

I should restate that while Kerry wasn't weak, 9/11 made Bush look stronger and that opposition made Mr. Heinz Ketchup look weak (the con here is a really rich Democrat who married more money).  People wanted the military strengthened and we all know which party takes care of that. 

At the end of the day, it's insanity.  I just have opinions on politics and occasionally make predictions. 

[Pali]

6 hours ago, Valek said:

i.e., we have liberals yelling at a Starbucks barista for being ethically implicit simply by virtue of working there, but the same liberal thought process allows the uncoupling of Beyonce from her money scandal.  I can't fathom it.  

The Illiberal Left has been making itself heard lately, no doubt about it.  Fortunately, its numbers remain relatively few, and they lack any real political power (this is sadly untrue of their far-right counterparts).  Unfortunately, they're highly concentrated among the young, so we can't count on them just dying off anytime soon the way we can Fox's viewership, so we'll be dealing with them for a while.

 

6 hours ago, Valek said:

Charismatic I don't put too much stock in (it's subjective, even if the intangible is supposedly measurable by popularity polls, this just makes it democratically subjective).

You say this as if subjective things don't still exist and have objectively quantifiable effects.

[Imoutgoodbye]

40 minutes ago, Pali said:

The Illiberal Left has been making itself heard lately, no doubt about it.  Fortunately, its numbers remain relatively few, and they lack any real political power (this is sadly untrue of their far-right counterparts).  Unfortunately, they're highly concentrated among the young, so we can't count on them just dying off anytime soon the way we can Fox's viewership, so we'll be dealing with them for a while.

 

You say this as if subjective things don't still exist and have objectively quantifiable effects.

I honestly never thought I'd say the liberals might end up taking it too far.  

Subjective things don't exist until we bring them into existence; it's the placing of an idea into a physical form, which in this case still happens to be intangible, still the signified of a sign and thus must be placed within the qualifications of a person.  While I can individually deny it, as long as it is democratically (multi-faceted, multi-voiced) subjective through mass belief, it becomes objectively quantifiable, hence the polls.  What I think about that matter doesn't actually matter.  

[Pali]

47 minutes ago, Valek said:

I honestly never thought I'd say the liberals might end up taking it too far.  

That's why I referred to them as the illiberal left - by the usual definitions, they aren't actually liberals.  They are progressives, they are leftists, but they are not liberals because they don't value the key liberal concepts of freedom of thought and speech and open debate of controversial issues.

 

46 minutes ago, Valek said:

What I think about that matter doesn't actually matter.  

Not so.  That's the beauty of many subjective truths - they can be changed far more easily than objective truths.  All you need to do is change someone's perspective of a thing, rather than changing the thing in question.

[Manual Labour]

Most Looney leftards grow out of it. So even if they arent about to die off there is a chance they will mature.

[f0xx]

 

[Imoutgoodbye]

Rand Paul.  😂  Man, I didn't watch it, but that guys more off his rocker than I am.  

[Pali]

Yeah, I never watch Youtube videos that are posted without an explanation of why I should bother taking the time.  It's a lazy way to have a discussion.