General Musings thread

[deeshopper]

How is foreign policy on Joe?

 

Crav can't multitask. lol.

[dc.]

100% disagree on any assertion of ISIS and Saudi link.

 

In the end, you're still missing my point. I'm by no means saying I want to be involved or that we can fix the problems - I am simply saying the world is not made up of "regions" that can so easily be isolated from each other.

 

Removing ourselves would certainly lessen the chances that these groups target western nations, sure. But there would still be a significant economic cost to simply "leaving them alone."

 

As an aside - I am unsure of my own moral willingness to watch mass atrocities occur. I am disgusted by politicians (but anyone, really) who says the US must get involved in the name of politics or defense or economics, but not in the name of humanitarianism. The fact that Obama's request to allow as few as 10,000 refugees from the region into the US is controversial... that's sad. Beyond sad. It's infuriating.

[papasmurfbell]

What we are seeing is Islam's reformation. Like Christianity it has to be a bloody period to see who wins the heart of the religion. Why stand in the middle of these sides?

 

As for the refugees. I see it as France and England who messed it up at the end of WW1 so why don't they be on the hook for the fallout. They were so hell bent on having the holy land backstabbing Faisal that they should own the results.

[dc.]

I would argue we own many of the results of the last decade and we should own up to it as much as anyone else. I had to laugh at a great article - maybe by Slate? - matching up current US politicians calling France our greatest ally with their comments from 2003 when France denounced the war in Iraq. Remember "Freedom Fries?"

 

As for the "standing in the way..," you're still not seeing/recognizing my point about the political/economic consequences. How does the US (global) economy survive however long it takes to sort out that war without access to those oil supplies? Shipping lanes? What does Europe do about refugees and migrants - not just in the Middle East, but coming from Africa? What do any of us do when Turkey is involved? Or Israel? India?

 

"The Muslim World" having this battle is going to get so much larger than just the heart of the Middle East... but apparently we can all go about our merry ways as if nothing is happening? And again, I say that both economically and morally.

[papasmurfbell]

Let the Exxons and BP's fend for themselves. Turkey and India make for asticky situation that I am not sure how to solve. At least with Turkey it seems Erdogan wants to play in the Islamic fundamentalist games. If he sees fit to do that I think he needs to be on his own.

[dc.]

I don't care about Exxon and its profit. I care about the cost of oil to our economy when more than 1/3 the world's supply is suddenly unavailable indefinitely.

 

Remember what Katrina did to oil prices by shutting down refineries in the gulf for just a week or so?

 

As for Turkey, etc... I again mean less about our responsibility to protect them or anything of the sort and more the logistical reality of inviting more than a billion people and 1/4 the world's soil into a massive conflict. And then assuming they'll just leave everyone else out?

 

Or better yet, I'm sure Russia or Cubs wouldn't use the entire thing to they're advantage or at least find a way to induce our involvement...

[papasmurfbell]

Well if we would like to nationalize our oil fields then we can bring the price down. Really we have used tax dollars to subsidize the oil industry keeping the cost below what market rate shouldbe.

 

I would be fine with Russia finding themselves in a quagmire.

[dc.]

As if Russia entering a quagmire can really occur without our involvement at some point...

 

As for oil prices, I disagree with that assessment significantly. And yet still your view is too narrow... We still couldn't produce enough oil to keep prices low. Even if we could locally, we couldn't help the world economy from collapsing. How do we support ourselves with a European economy falling apart? Think about now, the US as the only stable economy on the planet, but ten times worse in Europe, Asia, etc...

 

It'll all just work out.

[papasmurfbell]

Then we go isolationist.

[dc.]

So, you agree... It's logistically and logically impossible in the modern world to "let that happen"

 

Good. Glad we got that out of the way.

[cravnravn]

Crav can't multitask. lol.

Lol how in the heck did that happen.

[thundercleetz]

http://m.ign.com/articles/2015/11/24/humai-wants-to-resurrect-humans-within-30-years-using-ai

 

Really intriguing idea...

[papasmurfbell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_F2OWeneHA

 

 

DC

 

What is going on now looks really bad. This Russia Turkey deal could get really messy.

[dc.]

Saw this and it resonated.

 

Yes, Russia Turkey looks bad. Have heard a lot of analysis saying Putin doesn't actually have the gall to back it up

[papasmurfbell]

I saw Creed and it is really really good. Amazing cinematography. They really found something new for Rocky to do in an very interesting way.

[thundercleetz]

Saw this and it resonated.

 

Yes, Russia Turkey looks bad. Have heard a lot of analysis saying Putin doesn't actually have the gall to back it up

Do we want Putin to have the "gull" to do something? Russia is already hit so hard with trade sanctions that it is in this position on the cusp of having nothing to lose. That type of antagonism is counterproductive for peace and is dangerous for everyone in the world.

 

As far as what Russia can do, you start seeing political plays like these:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/putin-pushes-back-russia-responding-175300265.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw

 

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TE1WL20151125?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

 

http://asbarez.com/142209/armenia-must-liberate-its-western-territories-says-russian-politician/

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-turkey-jet-visa-travel-agreement-2015-11?utm_content=buffer7d047&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Maybe insignificant, but history tells us even seeds of ideas for struggling nations can be dangerous.

 

In regard to the attachment you posted: I understand the point, but what we have to understand is that Syria is a sovereign nation. Assad is no saint by any means, but the country is a unitary republic that has promoted religious tolerance that is significantly better than other areas in the Middle East.

 

While Assad has employed questionable actions, in regards to human ethics, to fight rebels that are threatening Syria's government, you have to consider this area of the world. Whether it's right or wrong, the closest thing to peace in the Middle East has always been at the hands of a ruthless iron fist. The Ottoman Empire, the Persians, even the Soviets controlling its areas of Eurasia.

 

I'd even argue that the part of the world was a safer place when Saddam Hussein was in power. Looking back, he was merely dealing with unrest the same way any other dictator in the Middle East had for the last thousand years, albeit with current technology (which maybe we are to blame for that). And now Assad is doing the same thing and we are on the verge of making the same exact mistake we made in Iraq.

 

What is happening in Syria is a tragedy. Is there some sort of moral obligation to go in there to help? I don't know. But we still don't know the magic formula on how to fix the Middle East, and thus we do not know the unintended consequences of any actions we take. We also have to respect the sovereignty of the Syrian government, whether we like them or not. And use diplomacy to work out any issues, instead of creating more wars by arming rebels.

[dc.]

No, I don't want Putin doing anything! I was more doing that as bad as it looks, I'm less worried because he doesn't have it in him- and for good reason as you stated. Russia is not in a good spot.

 

I agree 100% on a lot of the rest of your post on Syria. I like the little article simply because it identifies everyone involved as assholes and demonstrates pretty clearly how messy everything is - I didn't read it as telling us what to do, except as a response to people saying to refugees "stay and fight." I always respond, "fight who?" There's 30 sides there and it's a proxy war at this point between how many super powers?

 

Right answer? I see none. Is there any good guy? Certainly not.

[dc.]

Brief addition: I am perhaps most sympathetic to the Kurds.

[thundercleetz]

No, I don't want Putin doing anything! I was more doing that as bad as it looks, I'm less worried because he doesn't have it in him- and for good reason as you stated. Russia is not in a good spot.

 

I agree 100% on a lot of the rest of your post on Syria. I like the little article simply because it identifies everyone involved as assholes and demonstrates pretty clearly how messy everything is - I didn't read it as telling us what to do, except as a response to people saying to refugees "stay and fight." I always respond, "fight who?" There's 30 sides there and it's a proxy war at this point between how many super powers?

 

Right answer? I see none. Is there any good guy? Certainly not.

It's not that Putin doesn't have the gull to do something, he's simply not at the point where he has nothing to lose. Russia's economy is in terrible shape, and the current military operations have to be draining, so I am sure they have a tipping point. You keep poking a bear its eventually going to fight back. You might be able to handle the bear, but it's going to cause some collateral damage going down. Before this whole plane shot down saga, it looked like NATO was going to work with Russia. Now it's chaos.

 

You have to look at all these events from Putin's point of view: in Crimea he is trying to help his own people who do not have basic rights. Questionable ethics in doing so? Maybe. But then he sees the U.S. bombing buildings in Iraq killing innocent people, or Israel doing the same against the Palestinians.

 

Then in Syria, Russia is the only nation that is actively respecting Syria's sovereignty (regardless of whether his intentions are sincere or not). Whereas other NATO nations are talking about (and in Turkey's case) arming rebels. With all that said, Putin probably feels he's the righteous one in all of this.

 

By the way, fun fact: Assad and Erdogan's families vacationed together in the past. Now Assad doesn't serve Erdogan's purpose, and Turkey is letting rebels enter through the shared boarder. Turkey is trying to get NATO to do its dirty work in Syria and rid themselves of Assad. It's all just one big cluster.

[thundercleetz]

Brief addition: I am perhaps most sympathetic to the Kurds.

Kurds have certainly had it tough. You look at what they went through in Iraq, and in the early 20th century in Turkey. Even today in Turkey, the Kurds are a sizable minority but have limited ability to form political parties and have restrictions on formally teaching their language and culture in schools (maybe this was changed recently? Haven't checked for awhile).

 

It's interesting to look at the Treaty of Sevres, in which Woodrow Wilson drew up a map of the Middle East.

[papasmurfbell]

Brief addition: I am perhaps most sympathetic to the Kurds.

They are about the most reasonable ppl over there.

[dc.]

It's not that Putin doesn't have the gull to do something, he's simply not at the point where he has nothing to lose. Russia's economy is in terrible shape, and the current military operations have to be draining, so I am sure they have a tipping point. You keep poking a bear its eventually going to fight back. You might be able to handle the bear, but it's going to cause some collateral damage going down. Before this whole plane shot down saga, it looked like NATO was going to work with Russia. Now it's chaos.

 

You have to look at all these events from Putin's point of view: in Crimea he is trying to help his own people who do not have basic rights. Questionable ethics in doing so? Maybe. But then he sees the U.S. bombing buildings in Iraq killing innocent people, or Israel doing the same against the Palestinians.

 

Then in Syria, Russia is the only nation that is actively respecting Syria's sovereignty (regardless of whether his intentions are sincere or not). Whereas other NATO nations are talking about (and in Turkey's case) arming rebels. With all that said, Putin probably feels he's the righteous one in all of this.

 

By the way, fun fact: Assad and Erdogan's families vacationed together in the past. Now Assad doesn't serve Erdogan's purpose, and Turkey is letting rebels enter through the shared boarder. Turkey is trying to get NATO to do its dirty work in Syria and rid themselves of Assad. It's all just one big cluster.

I disagree on the analysis of Putin here. I think Putin is a lot more shrewd than all that - specifically, I think he is using exactly the rhetoric you mention above to gain domestic support for his actions, but I think he pursues then solely for political positioning and gain, not from any moral compass guiding him.

 

In Ukraine he undoubtedly claims that "his people" are in need, and that gains him tremendous support at home among a xenophobic and nationalist base that has long been fueled by his own policies of Russian exceptionality. But I have little belief he is actually interested in his people and far more interested in the political and economic value of that territory. Crimea has been on Russian radar since before Peter the Great - and the idea that it is Russian territory goes back a bit, but it's not really true to say they are "his people" in my mind. (Of course, I'm not Russian not from Crimea)

 

As for Syria, much the same. Though, like many politicians, it's weird to hear him say in this breath that sovereignty matters just months after invading Crimea, I have little doubt that such a claim garners him support at home. But I don't think his legitimate interest or moral guide is Syrian sovereignty, and if it were, what a hypocritical ass. I think the greater reality is that Russia and Putin need allies. Without Assad, they lose great influence as their coalition isn't strong as it is. I think he also loves being able simply to stick it to the west and assert his own influence.

 

I think Putin legitimately believes that Russia is a strong nation and can/will be a superpower again. Some even say he is after another union of larger states and I don't really doubt it as his goal. But I do entirely doubt his capability to make it happen by anything other than shrewd maneuvering - he's not going to win in the battlefield. He's going to win a game of chess aligning pieces on his side and against other great powers, etc. I still don't think he can actually do it - and I think internally Russia will boot him sooner than some think - but I have little doubt that's his goal. There is no grand moral philosophy behind it all except that strong Russia is good.

 

In the end, I always have to remember Putin is ex KGB and a product of a failed democracy. Democracy in eastern Europe is practically a dirty word since the rocky, corrupt and downright oligarchical dissolution of the Eastern Powers. Putin doesn't believe in the same values; he was raised working against them and manipulating their failure in his own nation.

[Spen]

I watched Trainwreck tonight. It was good, not great, but I thought Lebron wear great. Pretty natural delivery.

[dc.]

Go to sleep, Spen

[deeshopper]

I watched Trainwreck tonight. It was good, not great, but I thought Lebron wear great. Pretty natural delivery.

 

 

Go to sleep, Spen

 

lol.