"It's the same argument used against Barack Obama in 2008," Sanders told NBC News' Kate Snow. "He doesn't have any experience in foreign policy. But it didn't work then, won't work now."

Pretty weak response given how bad President Obama's foreign policy has been.

OT: I understand saying that women in politics need to stick together, but what she said was pretty deplorable.

ive already RSVP'd

How long are you going to keep troops in Iraq? 100 years?

We've been in Korea for over sixty.

The neat thing is, before the rise of crude oil, in the early 19th century before and as the industrial revolution began, we used different sources for oil in machinery. The only reason we use crude oil today is because of it's ease of use and access. Doesn't mean we can't use the older forms of oil, even if they're slightly harder to produce.

We can't really go back to the industrialized hunting of whales.

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on February 08, 2016, 10:00:53 AM

I don't know why this came to be about Obama and Iraq, but whatever. The absence of Saddam is what allowed ISIS to gain strength. US involvement only enabled that chain of events.

Fantastic, then, we would have Saddam doing most of what ISIS does, just to minorities and unopposed.

The problem isn't that we did the job. The problem is that we left it half-finished. You cannot just fix a middle eastern country. All of them are interconnected through ideology, allegiance and ethnicity. The whole region is going to have to reshape itself before the dying stops, and the US absolutely must have a hand in making sure things are in the best arrangement possible when the dust settles.

Also please don't tell me you think North Korea is a legitimate threat to anything but the northernmost parts of Seoul.

So uh, let's just make this clear: opposing the bad guys is only a marginally better situation than before. It's no substitute for results.

The fact is, boots on the ground cannot and will never change culture. Even through instating a democracy, there's still that huge change that the electorate will be morons. They've never had democracy before, so they may very well elect folks who don't truly represent their best interests (see: Egypt). ISIS could simply become the next Hamas or Hezbollah through these elections.

It begs the question: what even counts as 'mission accomplished'? Poll numbers? A few good elections? What possible milestones can be set that aren't utter bollocks?

North Korea's honestly not much of a threat, but they will be... eventually. What's more concerning is Russia and China impeding progress the US could be making against NK.

What is Japan and Germany.

Fairly rational and not Muslims.

All electorate are morons. All people are morons period. This is a fundamental flaw with Democracy, I agree. I don't claim to necessarily know what government is best for which people. But it's hard to do any worse than Saddam if you actually try.

I don't want to test that theory.

This happens all the time everywhere because Democracy a shit.

This is a bit bollocks, because it's not quite the same. ME voters wouldn't know the difference between Obama and Dylann Roof, which is basically what happens over there. (Plus, the US parties have primaries to narrow down the candidates, so there isn't a splintered vote that allows some wacko like Morsi to reach power through, well, luck. It's something that comes through experience.)

In which case we should handle it like we handled the Nazi party gaining power through the democratic process. Ideally, though, we can foster a culture of liberal individualism and separation of church and state. It will take time, work, and money, though, because separation of church and state is problematic for Islam. The concept of a caliphate is more important in their theology than most people realize.

I think that's unreasonably optimistic.

I would say something like a regime that protects human and minority rights and levels of violence close to that of eastern Europe. We can't turn Mesopotamia into France in a lifetime, but there is room for improvement.

That would be ideal, but as you said that's not something that'll happen in our lifetimes. I think that just shows the futility of this.

lmao what. Even China is tired of NK's bullshit lately. They're still at like early 1970s levels of military technology, if even that, and only because they spend all of their money on it. The only threat North Korea poses to anyone is the threat of collapse. If North Korea ceases to be a state, and South Korea or China has to incorporate the land and people, we'd have an economic and refugee crisis the likes of which have never been seen before. South Korea would go bankrupt overnight.

Except China doesn't want anti-missile systems near NK. Except China and Russia won't let the rest of the world bulldoze NK. They're still allies, for all intents and purposes.