Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Machismo]

Lets just forgot how often innocent men and woman die.

And yes, the US won't ignore it, does not mean they are any better than the countries(Russia, Iran, China) they pretend to oppose.

- - - Updated - - -



And it does not bother you when Biden does it.

It has long bothered me when authoritarians kill innocent people.

it does not bother me nearly as much when authoritarians kill violent asshats.

[JohnBrown1917]

Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers

Cool, so he’s going to reduce the drone strikes to pre-Trump levels.

Its cool that the US is still bombing the shit of the ME? Obama already caused untold amount of damage. That is not a good thing.


The fuck

- - - Updated - - -

It has long bothered me when authoritarians kill innocent people.

it does not bother me nearly as much when authoritarians kill violent asshats.

So you hate Biden now? Or do you actually belief the US when they claim only enemy combatants die during those strikes?

[Edge-]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/330194/...t-decline.aspx



And the sentiment in the US is improving after a pretty abysmal 2020 due to covid. It's almost back up to the November spike (WONDER WHY IT SPIKED), so hopefully it'll continue to trend upwards as we get through covid and don't have a basket of deplorables running the country.

[Omega10]

I'm not really sure why people are up in arms about drone striking some Iran-backed militias that are fighting for a theocratic Iranian regional hegemony, and as retaliation for their missile strikes no less. What's the alternative? Leave the region be, let Iran occupy Iraq and Syria with Russia's blessing, and allow China/Iran/Russia to consolidate into a second iron curtain? That somehow seems a little bit worse. America can't ignore its oversees interests in an interconnected world while other countries have no reservations about playing the same dangerous geopolitical games.

The US loses a lot more prestige by engaging in these kinds of military maneuvers then by focusing on economic issues and nation building abilities.

In Iraq and Afghanistan and Yemen and Libya and Syria, we have proved over and over and over ad nausam that we are willing to go the extra mile in bombing and killing and destroying other whole countries. At least other smallish countries. The result of all of this is that we are hated worldwide, and a large number of people throughout the world view the US as the number 1 threat to peace in the world.

All of our military actions in the Middle East has basically given the US a black eye - well lots of them. It has also cost the US a HUGE amount of money. That 10 trillion or so dollars we have spent on our military since the year 2000 would have bought very good health care and a very modern up to date and really cool transportation / mass transit system throughout the whole country. Which incidentally would have helped considerably vs the virus and generated a LOT of wealth for a LOT of Americans.

Your approach to the world is being acted upon by the US, and the main result overall is that EU can China are emerging as the main global powers, with the US third and other countries further down the list. If your approach continues to be applied by the US, then we will fall further than third.

[Machismo]

Its cool that the US is still bombing the shit of the ME? Obama already caused untold amount of damage. That is not a good thing.


The fuck

- - - Updated - - -



So you hate Biden now? Or do you actually belief the US when they claim only enemy combatants die during those strikes?

I never liked Biden. I sure as shit didn't vote for him. As for this specific strike, who was killed in it? If it's violent asshats, I don't much care. If it's innocent civilians, then fuck the administration.

Of course, I'm not a devout Trumpster like some posters...

[Thekri]

Biden has only been in about a month, give him time. He will drone it up just like Obama.

As will every US President. It is the nature of the world we live in. However, nuance is a thing that exists, and there are fundamentally different ways to go about things. The article I talked about this morning is a clear example of this. In 2015, Trump publicly talked about the need to kill the families of terrorists, and how he was going to resolve the conflicts just by killing more people. This exhibited a complete lack of understanding of the situation, but unfortunately it wasn't an idle threat. In 2018, Gina Haspel was approved by the senate to lead the CIA, which led to the operations discussed in the intercept. Those Madrasas that were getting shot up are definitely teaching and spreading radicalism, but previous administrations balked at the idea of shooting up schools full of children. Haspel's CIA apparently led such operations in Wardak Province at least, and I would be stunned if they didn't do similar operations across Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The article was focused on Wardak, because that is where the reporter was, but I doubt it was isolated. It was policy.

That is the difference here. There is a profound difference between military strikes in Syria, some of which are absolutely necessary, and a program specifically focusing on slaughtering schoolchildren to preempt indoctrination. All military strikes are not equal, how you do it matters a fucking lot. There is no shortage of assholes that need to die in Syria. Striking them is both appropriate and necessary. Slaughtering entire people groups, killing children as policy, and hurting the helpless is something else altogether. The mechanism of the strike doesn't matter, Drones are a tool, using them is not inherently moral or immoral. What you are blowing up makes the difference.

[Edge-]

This would be a lot less of an issue if Congress writ-large simply rescinded the AUMF and took responsibility for authorizing military action back.

But nobody, not in any party, wants to do that. Because then that's one more liability for their re-elections. If they green light a military strike that turns bad, they may be out of a job come the next election.

Congress should be the ones to authorize military actions like this. And if they want to give some of that authority to the White House for quick responses in certain regions, they should do so with clear limitations and oversight of the actions.

[Thekri]

This would be a lot less of an issue if Congress writ-large simply rescinded the AUMF and took responsibility for authorizing military action back.

But nobody, not in any party, wants to do that. Because then that's one more liability for their re-elections. If they green light a military strike that turns bad, they may be out of a job come the next election.

Congress should be the ones to authorize military actions like this. And if they want to give some of that authority to the White House for quick responses in certain regions, they should do so with clear limitations and oversight of the actions.

That is part of it, the other part is that the line between military and non-military actions have become incredibly blurred. They were already pretty vague in Vietnam, they have gotten more so since then. In military speak, we refer to them as "Three Letter Organizations" as they are host of federal agencies using different names, usually a three letter acronym. The CIA rarely operates under its own name, so it is responsible for some of them, but others are harder to trace. Remember those people in Portland with no name tags? Yeah, that sort of shit is everywhere overseas.

The military does not have exclusive control of state sponsored violence overseas, although I would argue it absolutely should. Military actions are too easy to track, too easy to hold accountable. Instead it is a network of contractors and government agents, usually working with multiple degrees of separation from any federal official. It is a cancer that has been allowed to grow because it shields the political class from consequences. These groups can and do call military strikes, and the Air Force does not even operate all the armed drones. A significant number of these strikes are planned and/or executed by other agencies. Most often they are carried out by the military, but the military isn't involved in the targeting process, they are just given a delivery address. I remember my commander straight up refusing one of these "requests" because they refused to tell him who actually approved it. It had the required approvals, but the names were redacted.

This sort of shit has to stop. It made me feel sick to my stomach then, and it hasn't gotten better since. Throwing ordinance down range with no idea who it is aimed at is disgusting. I never did it, never would do it, but I know it happens a lot.

- - - Updated - - -

How would you know? You're brand new here.

Evidence, please.

Oh, he has been stalking me for about three years, don't worry about it.

[Machismo]

That is part of it, the other part is that the line between military and non-military actions have become incredibly blurred. They were already pretty vague in Vietnam, they have gotten more so since then. In military speak, we refer to them as "Three Letter Organizations" as they are host of federal agencies using different names, usually a three letter acronym. The CIA rarely operates under its own name, so it is responsible for some of them, but others are harder to trace. Remember those people in Portland with no name tags? Yeah, that sort of shit is everywhere overseas.

The military does not have exclusive control of state sponsored violence overseas, although I would argue it absolutely should. Military actions are too easy to track, too easy to hold accountable. Instead it is a network of contractors and government agents, usually working with multiple degrees of separation from any federal official. It is a cancer that has been allowed to grow because it shields the political class from consequences. These groups can and do call military strikes, and the Air Force does not even operate all the armed drones. A significant number of these strikes are planned and/or executed by other agencies. Most often they are carried out by the military, but the military isn't involved in the targeting process, they are just given a delivery address. I remember my commander straight up refusing one of these "requests" because they refused to tell him who actually approved it. It had the required approvals, but the names were redacted.

This sort of shit has to stop. It made me feel sick to my stomach then, and it hasn't gotten better since. Throwing ordinance down range with no idea who it is aimed at is disgusting. I never did it, never would do it, but I know it happens a lot.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh, he has been stalking me for about three years, don't worry about it.

Oh, I know who it is, I refer to him as the Brexit Burner.

[Omega10]

As will every US President. It is the nature of the world we live in. However, nuance is a thing that exists, and there are fundamentally different ways to go about things. The article I talked about this morning is a clear example of this. In 2015, Trump publicly talked about the need to kill the families of terrorists, and how he was going to resolve the conflicts just by killing more people. This exhibited a complete lack of understanding of the situation, but unfortunately it wasn't an idle threat. In 2018, Gina Haspel was approved by the senate to lead the CIA, which led to the operations discussed in the intercept. Those Madrasas that were getting shot up are definitely teaching and spreading radicalism, but previous administrations balked at the idea of shooting up schools full of children. Haspel's CIA apparently led such operations in Wardak Province at least, and I would be stunned if they didn't do similar operations across Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The article was focused on Wardak, because that is where the reporter was, but I doubt it was isolated. It was policy.

That is the difference here. There is a profound difference between military strikes in Syria, some of which are absolutely necessary, and a program specifically focusing on slaughtering schoolchildren to preempt indoctrination. All military strikes are not equal, how you do it matters a fucking lot. There is no shortage of assholes that need to die in Syria. Striking them is both appropriate and necessary. Slaughtering entire people groups, killing children as policy, and hurting the helpless is something else altogether. The mechanism of the strike doesn't matter, Drones are a tool, using them is not inherently moral or immoral. What you are blowing up makes the difference.

What happens in the real world is that everyone lumps the strikes "slaughtering entire people groups and killing children as policy" with all the rest of them. And when the US tries to claim that a particular strike was warranted because X, Y, and Z, no one believes us. Finally, we don't have a lot of credibility for calling out other countries for human rights abuses when people think that we are "slaughtering entire people groups and killing children as policy" on a regular basis.

[Theodarzna]

I'm not really sure why people are up in arms about drone striking some Iran-backed militias that are fighting for a theocratic Iranian regional hegemony, and as retaliation for their missile strikes no less. What's the alternative? Leave the region be, let Iran occupy Iraq and Syria with Russia's blessing, and allow China/Iran/Russia to consolidate into a second iron curtain? That somehow seems a little bit worse. America can't ignore its oversees interests in an interconnected world while other countries have no reservations about playing the same dangerous geopolitical games.

I wasn't aware the US had some right to overlordship on a continent the United States isn't even physically on? And bombing and slaughtering people and building a world spanning Empire seems, you know, evil.

I mean if we just acknowledge that is what is being done, I can at least respect the honesty of it, but pretending "Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun, their shenanigans are cruel!" is just ridiculous.

[Machismo]

I wasn't aware the US had some right to overlordship on a continent the United States isn't even physically on? And bombing and slaughtering people and building a world spanning Empire seems, you know, evil.

I mean if we just acknowledge that is what is being done, I can at least respect the honesty of it, but pretending "Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun, their shenanigans are cruel!" is just ridiculous.

Then, why do you choose to live here?

It didn't bother you when Trump was doing it, but you are suddenly outraged...

[Breccia]

(posts Cruz being a hypocrite liar)

Cruz said Republicans represent blue collar, after returning from Cancun.

P.S. Democrats back unions, Republicans don't.

[JohnBrown1917]

Then, why do you choose to live here?

It didn't bother you when Trump was doing it, but you are suddenly outraged...

Same reason you do. Or you again implying you support the US foreign policy when the democrats do it? So much for claiming to be a libertarian.

[Machismo]

Same reason you do. Or you again implying you support the US foreign policy when the democrats do it? So much for claiming to be a libertarian.

Nope, I don't support bad policy.

Of course, unlike her, I am consistent when calling it out, and not a giant hypocrite who shills for a guy who did the same thing.

Well, this is awkward...

[Edge-]

I wasn't aware the US had some right to overlordship on a continent the United States isn't even physically on? And bombing and slaughtering people and building a world spanning Empire seems, you know, evil.

Like it or not, our troops remain there after the Congressionally authorized war began. We can argue about how Trump ignored the Iraqi vote to kick them out for years, something which you don't seem to care much about, and how Biden should work with congress to wind down our presence there quickly. Though like, there are a ton of priorities that are being worked on now and shit never happens as fast as folks would like because it's never as easy as people want to believe.

Because we're pretty much on the same page there, I don't think the US presence has a purpose there anymore, and the Iraqi's don't appear to want us.

But for now, they're there, and that means protecting them and sending a message to militias that attacking US forces will have consequences.

[Theodarzna]

Like it or not, our troops remain there after the Congressionally authorized war began. We can argue about how Trump ignored the Iraqi vote to kick them out for years, something which you don't seem to care much about, and how Biden should work with congress to wind down our presence there quickly. Though like, there are a ton of priorities that are being worked on now and shit never happens as fast as folks would like because it's never as easy as people want to believe.

Because we're pretty much on the same page there, I don't think the US presence has a purpose there anymore, and the Iraqi's don't appear to want us.

But for now, they're there, and that means protecting them and sending a message to militias that attacking US forces will have consequences.

Hey, Biden took time out of his busy schedule of not raising the minimum wage, and not getting those 2k checks to bomb part of Syria. I know you want to have a gotcha to defend your treasured voteball team but come on, this is pretty weak. I know, we are allegedly on the "Same page" except for you know actually not wanting an American presence over there at all and to stop meddling in that region. Why are US forces in a country not in the United States? A country that didn't invite us, whose government doesn't want us there, and for whom itself and its invited allies are trying to repel a hostile foreign invasion.

As for me, Idk, when Trump was in office all you guys seemed keen on was "Decorum" and a delusional fanfiction spy novel about the Russians. Wasn't much room to talk given the consensus was "Pulling out of Syria would have been doing PUTINS BIDDING" or some such claptrap.

[Machismo]

Hey, Biden took time out of his busy schedule of not raising the minimum wage, and not getting those 2k checks to bomb part of Syria. I know you want to have a gotcha to defend your treasured voteball team but come on, this is pretty weak. I know, we are allegedly on the "Same page" except for you know actually not wanting an American presence over there at all and to stop meddling in that region. Why are US forces in a country not in the United States? A country that didn't invite us, whose government doesn't want us there, and for whom itself and its invited allies are trying to repel a hostile foreign invasion.

As for me, Idk, when Trump was in office all you guys seemed keen on was "Decorum" and a delusional fanfiction spy novel about the Russians. Wasn't much room to talk given the consensus was "Pulling out of Syria would have been doing PUTINS BIDDING" or some such claptrap.

Why didn't your guy raise the minimum wage, or send those $2k checks?

Imagine defending the Syrian government... Damn...

[Edge-]

Hey, Biden took time out of his busy schedule of not raising the minimum wage, and not getting those 2k checks to bomb part of Syria.

Because leadership-by-tunnel-vision is like, a pretty fuckin awful idea, Theo. You can't just brute force something faster because you want to or you spend more of your personal time on that, and a President with an administration incapable of doing more than one thing at a time would be like, pretty fucking awful.

How much time do you think it took? Days? Hours? Weeks? What about stimulus and minimum wage? How much time has he spent on that? Is it more than ordering the strike in Syria? Less? By how much?

[QUOTE=Theodarzna;53043339]I know you want to have a gotcha to defend your treasured voteball team but come on, this is pretty weak.[/qutoe]

Theo, I've been honest in that I believe your sincerity of your positions multiple times. I'd appreciate you extending the same courtesy and knocking off the whole "oh it's like a sports team" strawman nonsense. There's nothing to say about it other than you have a really, really, really weird version of me living inside your head and I'm not sure if I should be charging you for my "likeness" or if I owe you rent money.

I know, we are allegedly on the "Same page" except for you know actually not wanting an American presence over there at all and to stop meddling in that region.

Hi Theo, I've been protesting against the wars in the ME since like, at least 2002. I don't want us over there unless we're responding to a direct request for support from an ally in the region, and the request itself is both in the US interest and valid.

How long have you been protesting those wars?

Why are US forces in a country not in the United States? A country that didn't invite us, whose government doesn't want us there, and for whom itself and its invited allies are trying to repel a hostile foreign invasion.

Because Congress authorized the war, and then gave the POTUS extensive powers over continued military actions around the world with the AUMF because they're cowardly shitbirds who don't want to have to answer to their constituents if a military action goes bad. We can go back and dredge up the origins of all of this if we want, but it does no good for the current situation.

They're there now, and until we pull them out they need to be protected. I hope Congress and Biden move that timetable up, especially since the Iraqi parliament told us to get out, but right now there's a lot of shit at home they're working on too. Pulling troops out isn't exactly as easy as, "Give the order and they're home next weekend".

As for me, Idk, when Trump was in office all you guys seemed keen on was "Decorum" and a delusional fanfiction spy novel about the Russians.

Again, the entire US intelligence community as well as the intelligence agencies of multiple other countries all confirmed the 2016 Russian interference. Like, this is straight up rejecting reality shit, Theo.

And we cared about "decorum"? We weren't livid at his child kidnapping policy? We weren't pissed at the deregulation and the moves to functionally intentionally ruin the environment with drilling and mining leases and an EPA run by oil flunkies? We didn't lament the complete loss of US diplomacy and how it weakened the "soft power" of the US internationally?

The only way I think one could hold such a view is if one never bothered to read or engage in any of the discussions of Trump at the time.

Wasn't much room to talk given the consensus was "Pulling out of Syria would have been doing PUTINS BIDDING" or some such claptrap.

No, abandoning our Kurdish allies and then saying we're sending US forces to "take the oil" was what we were pretty fuckin pissed about.

I don't recall you caring much about us abandoning regional allies to die or sending troops into the region with the express purpose of "getting the oil", but it's been years and my memory isn't what it used to be so I could very well simply have forgotten.

[Theodarzna]

No, abandoning our Kurdish allies and then saying we're sending US forces to "take the oil" was what we were pretty fuckin pissed about.

I don't recall you caring much about us abandoning regional allies to die or sending troops into the region with the express purpose of "getting the oil", but it's been years and my memory isn't what it used to be so I could very well simply have forgotten.

Ahhh, there it is, We gotta stay there for fucking ever, we gotta bomb every square inch and terrorize everyone, now uhhhh for the Kurds!

Sorry, I get your party backs forever war and you gotta find some way to twist into knots to claim to be both Anti-War but fine with it. And yeah, Unlike yourself I've been wanting those Wars to you know both end and never happen.

That is what is great about your stances, they are never serious or committed. You oppose these wars, Someday, Kinda like you are for Universal Health Care, Someday.... that is a pretty low stakes position to take on the matter.