[helene_t]

Ken, aren't you concerned about Trump's business ethics? You've probably read about all the investors, Trump University students, banks, suppliers etc. who have lost money dealing with him. Even some of his policiy advicers in his current campaign have quit after Trump failed to pay them.

[billw55]

helene_t, on 2016-September-12, 05:27, said:

Ken, aren't you concerned about Trump's business ethics? You've probably read about all the investors, Trump University students, banks, suppliers etc. who have lost money dealing with him. Even some of his policiy advicers in his current campaign have quit after Trump failed to pay them.

What baffles me is that people are still wiling to deal with him, despite the long trail of losses and frauds.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2016-September-11, 13:56, said:

What's your take on that?

That he's not wrong. If that's his position.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2016-September-12, 04:51, said:

Who cares what the polls say? The real concern is what happens. We could have a vote and see the anti jihadists win in a landslide, but would that have any impact at all on the ground? This is exactly the sort of nonsense study that is utterly pointless.

For that matter I cannot imagine a more obvious example of the Bradley effect than a poll of people in the Middle East. It's sort of like some of my clients. Have you ever been in trouble? No. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? No. When was the last time that you were in prison? 2009. Makes no sense. But the translation. Do you support Jihad? No.

I think this and your previous post expose more about your support of Trump than anything else you have written. It appears you have considerable concern about jihadist terror.

That concern would fit perfectly the profile of authoritarian voter who looks for someone who talks tough about taking action against threats and providing safety.

Perhaps, Ken you might want to ask yourself if your concern is justified cognitively or is it simply an emotive response? And while you're at it you might want to ask yourself if the Obama "talk about it" response to halt Iran's nuclear plans has worked out better or worse than Bush's "ground troops and war" response to Iraq and Afghanistan?

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-12, 11:12, said:

And while you're at it you might want to ask yourself if the Obama "talk about it" response to halt Iran's nuclear plans has worked out better or worse than Bush's "ground troops and war" response to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Sometimes diplomacy is a better choice. Perhaps usually. But when you compare Obama's response to Iran with Bush's response to Afghanistan, there is a very large difference there which I think you can grasp.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2016-September-12, 12:06, said:

Sometimes diplomacy is a better choice. Perhaps usually. But when you compare Obama's response to Iran with Bush's response to Afghanistan, there is a very large difference there which I think you can grasp.

The main difference I saw was that President Obama withstood tremendous pressure for military action against Iran, including a lobbying visit from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress. I concede, though, that the pressures of the first 1-2 years after the attack on 9-11 were of a different magnitude.

I have never been one to say negotiating with Isis or similar terrorist organizations should be our goal or even our focus - what I have said all along is that a strictly military solution is not possible. The best choice IMO is for quasi-military policing type action and special forces actions and drone strikes against precise targets with a political goal of helping the middle east to find a solution to their problems, which affect us all.

[kenrexford]

See you guys are missing the whole point. There are not two options. You assume that one option is all-out military intervention AKA bush and that the other option appears to be sneaky diplomacy. The only difference between those two is that each tries to change the regime one directly and one indirectly. The realpolitik idea does not seem to be either. The other option is to keep power where it is. Restraint it perhaps but keep it where it is. Saddam Hussein had to be pushed back when he broke the Border. Anything else in Trump's words destabilized.

Iraq when bad when we creative vacuum and then abandoned it. The solution perhaps was not to creative vacuum and then fill it either.

Libya went bad when we created a vacuum.

Syria is bad when we are trying to create a vacuum where Assad stands.

Isis is a unique problem. The solution taking out Isis is not complete unless the vacuum is refilled. The solution to refill the vacuum Maybe 2 coordinate with Russia to ensure some degree of mutually non beneficial stalemate which is probably the original borders.

The problem with creating vacuums is that it creates a hotbed for terrorism.

It is in this way in my opinion the Trump has a lot in common with Paul. This is why I did not like neoconservative meddling. Democratic behind the scenes puppet mastering is the same thing.

I find it humorous that people debating these issues are stuck not thinking through what people are actually advocating but instead fighting old battles. You hear that Hillary voted for the war and that she messed up Libya but counter that Trump will somehow or another do what Bush did. Did you not hear Trump belittling bush?

International relations is a big picture parallel to internal affairs. The Republicans want to throw everything at Big Business. The Democrats pretend to like the little guy well getting the endorsements of big business. And you don't find this perplexing? There are not two options. The two options are not to build up the business and hope that things trickle-down or to build up the business and tax the business to pay the little guy who can't find a job. The alternative is that actually build up the little guy.

When you stop thinking of the world in the old regime are two sides of the same coin you start to realize that a completely different coin might make some sense.

[kenberg]

kenrexford, on 2016-September-12, 20:45, said:

See you guys are missing the whole point. There are not two options. You assume that one option is all-out military intervention AKA bush and that the other option appears to be sneaky diplomacy. The only difference between those two is that each tries to change the regime one directly and one indirectly. The realpolitik idea does not seem to be either. The other option is to keep power where it is. Restraint it perhaps but keep it where it is. Saddam Hussein had to be pushed back when he broke the Border. Anything else in Trump's words destabilized.

Iraq when bad when we creative vacuum and then abandoned it. The solution perhaps was not to creative vacuum and then fill it either.

Libya went bad when we created a vacuum.

Syria is bad when we are trying to create a vacuum where Assad stands.

Isis is a unique problem. The solution taking out Isis is not complete unless the vacuum is refilled. The solution to refill the vacuum Maybe 2 coordinate with Russia to ensure some degree of mutually non beneficial stalemate which is probably the original borders.

The problem with creating vacuums is that it creates a hotbed for terrorism.

It is in this way in my opinion the Trump has a lot in common with Paul. This is why I did not like neoconservative meddling. Democratic behind the scenes puppet mastering is the same thing.

I find it humorous that people debating these issues are stuck not thinking through what people are actually advocating but instead fighting old battles. You hear that Hillary voted for the war and that she messed up Libya but counter that Trump will somehow or another do what Bush did. Did you not hear Trump belittling bush?

International relations is a big picture parallel to internal affairs. The Republicans want to throw everything at Big Business. The Democrats pretend to like the little guy well getting the endorsements of big business. And you don't find this perplexing? There are not two options. The two options are not to build up the business and hope that things trickle-down or to build up the business and tax the business to pay the little guy who can't find a job. The alternative is that actually build up the little guy.

When you stop thinking of the world in the old regime are two sides of the same coin you start to realize that a completely different coin might make some sense.

I try to say as clearly as possible what I believe. When someone begins a port by telling me what I am assuming and that I am missing the point, also known as not agreeing with the poster, I get a good deal less interested in reading what comes next.

Anyway, I agree that there is a lot of room between sending Kerry to yet another meeting on the one hand, and all out war on the other.
More later.

[billw55]

kenrexford, on 2016-September-12, 20:45, said:

I find it humorous that people debating these issues are stuck not thinking through what people are actually advocating but instead fighting old battles. You hear that Hillary voted for the war and that she messed up Libya but counter that Trump will somehow or another do what Bush did. Did you not hear Trump belittling bush?

You seem to still believe that the things Trump says mean anything at all. Haven't you been listening?

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-12, 13:24, said:

I have never been one to say negotiating with Isis or similar terrorist organizations should be our goal or even our focus - what I have said all along is that a strictly military solution is not possible. The best choice IMO is for quasi-military policing type action and special forces actions and drone strikes against precise targets with a political goal of helping the middle east to find a solution to their problems, which affect us all.

Since the Balfour declaration, the West has been "interfering" with this part of the world. Put the shoe on the other foot and we all would be militating for some kind of action to stop others meddling in our affairs, be it "only" drone strikes to kill our prominent activists....
Since Iran and the Mosadeque overthrow by the CIA, US and British intervention has raised several generations of agitated and anxious who are willing to do what they must to free their people from this perceived and real yoke of oppression.
The Anglo-American empire may well last a bit longer but military presence/force is a prerequisite. (How many US bases are in the region?) Allowing Saudi Arabia to aid and abet in return for tolerating their Wahibist leanings only worsens the situation.
Getting out while you can is the only way to eventually (at least one generation) free yourselves and the world from this predictable reaction. The region has been self-destructing (re-creating?) since pre-biblical times and sitting in the middle of hornet's nests, constantly hitting them with a stick, is a sure way of getting stung, repeatedly.

[Winstonm]

Sorry, Kenrexford, but I think you established the dichotomy with this:

Quote

The battles in the Middle East and frankly in the Muslim world are not like the battles of the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction is not cause for them to stop fighting. Mutually assured destruction would mean that Allah is winning. The only way to have some semblance of a cooling down of conflicts is the have one side in charge in their area.

The Diplomatic solution of getting a bunch of people to sneak around weapons to this side or the other seems to have not worked very well.

It is quite apparent that our pre-Obama foreign policies (both Dem and Rep) have been woefully clueless. Compound those mistakes with the Bush neoconservative administration and its ideas that the U.S. could somehow impose its military might and creat a pax Americana has been shown to be too ludicrous for words.

So I have some sympathy for your viewpoint that a change of direction is needed - a change of direction is exactly what we got from President Obama and so far it has worked out much better than anything previously tried. Perfect? No. Better? Certainly.

Building a wall around the perceived bad guys is impossible. A combination of diplomacy and might when required seems a better course; then, determining "when required" becomes the problem.

[mycroft]

The only solution, frankly, is raise our security somewhat, get out of the Middle East completely, and wait 40 years. Anything else will just trigger the burr in the side of the ME we've been triggering for at least 150 years.

Since that is a non-option for a number of reasons (not least the humanitarian disaster it would be until things settle out, not that what we will do will be much better) I don't hold out much hope.

What will happen, instead, is exactly what has happened since at least 1900; various "strong countries" will push their agendas in the region, knowing that they are safe from direct military retaliation; the retaliation will come in dribs and drabs and non-militarily; that will be another issue requiring revenge, which will then become an agenda in the region. Lather, Rinse, Repeat; nobody's willing to be the first to stop and absorb the damage that will happen (with or without retaliation, frankly, but any attempt to just "not let this change us" will eventually fail), and nobody has the political will to do so for the length of time it will require to actually break the cycle.

We now have yet another "strong country" pushing their agenda: Gwynne Dyer is being his usual bearer of bad news.

I am very glad I live in a country where the chance of random death by some (para)military actor is less than the chance of death crossing the street. I am willing to put in enough "money for security" and give up enough "freedom for security" to ensure that those chances don't equal out and no more. Unfortunately, that's a lot less than is currently being spent, and there's nothing, really, more that I can do about it.

[Trinidad]

kenrexford, on 2016-September-12, 20:45, said:

Did you not hear Trump belittling bush?

This is like saying to someone at a hardstyle dance event: "Did you not hear that 736th beat?"

Trump has been belittling everybody whose name starts with ... a letter. Are we really supposed to keep track when he gets to the 'B' for 'W'?

Rik

[Trinidad]

Trinidad, on 2016-September-13, 13:16, said:

This is like saying to someone at a hardstyle dance event: "Did you not hear that 736th beat?"

Trump has been belittling everybody whose name starts with ... a letter. Are we really supposed to keep track when he gets to the 'B' for 'W'?

Rik

There is, of course, an exception for names that start with the letter 'TRUMP'.

Rik

[Al_U_Card]

mycroft, on 2016-September-13, 10:40, said:

We now have yet another "strong country" pushing their agenda: Gwynne Dyer is being his usual bearer of bad news.

Dyer is right about the Kurds. Betrayed by everyone and determined to establish an autonomous, independent nation that relies on local councils to govern responsibly....one reason why they are so persecuted...

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-13, 08:10, said:

Sorry, Kenrexford, but I think you established the dichotomy with this:


It is quite apparent that our pre-Obama foreign policies (both Dem and Rep) have been woefully clueless. Compound those mistakes with the Bush neoconservative administration and its ideas that the U.S. could somehow impose its military might and creat a pax Americana has been shown to be too ludicrous for words.

So I have some sympathy for your viewpoint that a change of direction is needed - a change of direction is exactly what we got from President Obama and so far it has worked out much better than anything previously tried. Perfect? No. Better? Certainly.

Building a wall around the perceived bad guys is impossible. A combination of diplomacy and might when required seems a better course; then, determining "when required" becomes the problem.

Both Bush and Obama do the same thing in the end. Bush and the Neo cons use our military force to take out the dictator and then create a vacuum. I mean sure we could stay there forever but that's not realistic. We seem to have some insane hope that we will create Walmart shoppers in the Middle East and sock hop Americana if we just give them the chance. Naive.

Obama avoids using US troops. Instead he uses assassination in the empowering of complete lunatics as a means of taking out the strong man thereby creating the same vacuum. The one benefit to Obama is efficiency. Whereas bush left a vacuum for someone to fill Obama found the crazy people to fill it ahead of time. And for that matter Obama avoided using US troops to accomplish the goals of the crazy people.

Hillary Clinton will do something similar. We will get a bunch of people together who either agree with bush or who agree with Obama. Those people will agree as an International Community to engage in assassination and enabling of crazy people.

The better solution may be what we had all along. Dictators serve one useful function. They do what we're not willing to do to the crazy people. Sure they also do this to normal people. That's really bad. I agree. But at least it's stable. At least the crazy people were kept at Bay by the military.

Now there is something to be said for the idea of using Force to take over these areas to control them long enough for the crazy people to be held back and for the normal people to establish good governance. That frankly seems to be what happened after World War One. But I don't think using colonialism as a means of protecting people is exactly the kind of solution that the world Community really wants to engage. There is an historic precedent for occupying in controlling a neighbor who is a hostile that cannot be stopped. But that requires quite a long commitment and quite a large cost to a lot of people on both sides.

The problem may be of our own making. I don't know that the Ottoman Empire was quite as belligerent internally. Breaking up the Ottoman Empire may have created an environment where strong men were less accountable and more tribal. It did have an effect of eliminating a potential superpower. And perhaps that was necessary. And perhaps we have some sort of moral obligation to attend to the problems that arose because of that decision.

I just do not see any end game that could possibly be a success because of the core problem. In whatever form the Middle East Maybe we Face the same core problem. Jihad is integral to Islam. If Islam is a superpower they are belligerent. If Islam is colonial it is too expensive for us to control. And frankly not moral. If Islam is controlled by tribal strongmen the Innocence will be harmed. If Islam is uncontrolled complete violent chaos a Mad Max world results. The choice is between 4 evils.

The strongman dictator who is tribalistic has several advantages. It cost us less. Death to innocent people is more predictably reduced. There is less risk of a superpower status. Granted we can have lots of little nuclear threats all over the place but at least the total Firepower would be reduced on an individual basis. The need for an occasional strike could be focused as with Saddam Hussein.

The fantasy of just talking them into peace and Harmony is a joke.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2016-September-13, 17:10, said:

Both Bush and Obama do the same thing in the end. Bush and the Neo cons use our military force to take out the dictator and then create a vacuum. I mean sure we could stay there forever but that's not realistic. We seem to have some insane hope that we will create Walmart shoppers in the Middle East and sock hop Americana if we just give them the chance. Naive.

Obama avoids using US troops. Instead he uses assassination in the empowering of complete lunatics as a means of taking out the strong man thereby creating the same vacuum. The one benefit to Obama is efficiency. Whereas bush left a vacuum for someone to fill Obama found the crazy people to fill it ahead of time. And for that matter Obama avoided using US troops to accomplish the goals of the crazy people.

Hillary Clinton will do something similar. We will get a bunch of people together who either agree with bush or who agree with Obama. Those people will agree as an International Community to engage in assassination and enabling of crazy people.

The better solution may be what we had all along. Dictators serve one useful function. They do what we're not willing to do to the crazy people. Sure they also do this to normal people. That's really bad. I agree. But at least it's stable. At least the crazy people were kept at Bay by the military.

Now there is something to be said for the idea of using Force to take over these areas to control them long enough for the crazy people to be held back and for the normal people to establish good governance. That frankly seems to be what happened after World War One. But I don't think using colonialism as a means of protecting people is exactly the kind of solution that the world Community really wants to engage. There is an historic precedent for occupying in controlling a neighbor who is a hostile that cannot be stopped. But that requires quite a long commitment and quite a large cost to a lot of people on both sides.

The problem may be of our own making. I don't know that the Ottoman Empire was quite as belligerent internally. Breaking up the Ottoman Empire may have created an environment where strong men were less accountable and more tribal. It did have an effect of eliminating a potential superpower. And perhaps that was necessary. And perhaps we have some sort of moral obligation to attend to the problems that arose because of that decision.

I just do not see any end game that could possibly be a success because of the core problem. In whatever form the Middle East Maybe we Face the same core problem. Jihad is integral to Islam. If Islam is a superpower they are belligerent. If Islam is colonial it is too expensive for us to control. And frankly not moral. If Islam is controlled by tribal strongmen the Innocence will be harmed. If Islam is uncontrolled complete violent chaos a Mad Max world results. The choice is between 4 evils.

The strongman dictator who is tribalistic has several advantages. It cost us less. Death to innocent people is more predictably reduced. There is less risk of a superpower status. Granted we can have lots of little nuclear threats all over the place but at least the total Firepower would be reduced on an individual basis. The need for an occasional strike could be focused as with Saddam Hussein.

The fantasy of just talking them into peace and Harmony is a joke.

Jihad may indeed be a part of Islam but according to this it is not an excuse for terror or terrorism.

Otherwise, I think you are exaggerating the threat from terrorists and terror, and that you see it as such an important threat goes a long way IMO to understanding why you are swayed by a touch-talking con man running for President.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on 2016-September-13, 17:10, said:

I just do not see any end game that could possibly be a success because of the core problem. In whatever form the Middle East Maybe we Face the same core problem. Jihad is integral to Islam. If Islam is a superpower they are belligerent. If Islam is colonial it is too expensive for us to control. And frankly not moral. If Islam is controlled by tribal strongmen the Innocence will be harmed. If Islam is uncontrolled complete violent chaos a Mad Max world results. The choice is between 4 evils.

The strongman dictator who is tribalistic has several advantages. It cost us less. Death to innocent people is more predictably reduced. There is less risk of a superpower status. Granted we can have lots of little nuclear threats all over the place but at least the total Firepower would be reduced on an individual basis. The need for an occasional strike could be focused as with Saddam Hussein.

The fantasy of just talking them into peace and Harmony is a joke.

And to think that Trump supporters are stereotyped as a basket of deplorable ignorant racists...

Ken, since you are such the expert, please explain which branches of Islam you are talking about, which countries we're describing, and the roughly what centuries you want to discuss.

Just so we're clear, my basic line of discussion will focus on the following:

1. I don't believe that Islam is inherently more violent that any of the other Abrahamic religions
2. That the current unrest in the Middle East has its basis in socio-economic factors rather than the inherent characteristics of the religion
3. That the Sunni - Shia divide is best understood as an ethnic division rather than a religious debate (in particular, the Iranian decision to covert to twelver Shia was a conscious attempt to creation an Iranian identity)

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2016-September-13, 18:43, said:

1. I don't believe that Islam is inherently more violent that any of the other Abrahamic religions

Islam gets a bad press on that score for a couple of reasons:

It has retained certain traditions at state level long given up as barbaric by the other Abrahamic religions. Judicial amputations etc.

It exports its (non state) violence outside its core areas unlike almost all of the other religions. Basically most of the Christian nutters are in the Southern US which is where I would consider the centre of radical Christianity to be atm. The Jewish nutters are the settlers, in the area of Israel if not technically in it. Neither of these are blowing people up in faraway lands (although their state may be).

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on 2016-September-13, 18:43, said:

And to think that Trump supporters are stereotyped as a basket of deplorable ignorant racists...

Ken, since you are such the expert, please explain which branches of Islam you are talking about, which countries we're describing, and the roughly what centuries you want to discuss.

Just so we're clear, my basic line of discussion will focus on the following:

1. I don't believe that Islam is inherently more violent that any of the other Abrahamic religions
2. That the current unrest in the Middle East has its basis in socio-economic factors rather than the inherent characteristics of the religion
3. That the Sunni - Shia divide is best understood as an ethnic division rather than a religious debate (in particular, the Iranian decision to covert to twelver Shia was a conscious attempt to creation an Iranian identity)

Senseless blather. It's more like defending pitbulls. pit bulls can be sweet dogs. I get that. But most people who buy pit bulls want mean dogs. So they end up mean dogs. You can give all the theory you want us to help pit bulls are actually sweet dogs. But the proof is in the existence.

You start with the principle that Islam is no more inherently violent than other abrahamic religions. Okay. You obviously are not consistently analyzing. Christianity as a theory is inherently pacifist. It is only in its practice that it has manifested violence. Judaism is inherently violent. It is only in its practice that is manifested boring. Islam has the distinction of being both inherently violent in theory and in practice.

What about the socioeconomics of the Middle East? How precisely did the socio-economic arise? Do you somehow think that the Middle East which has constantly been the center of Commerce and now an oil Mecca magically turned socioeconomicly destitute? Was there a meteor that hit?

Then you have some erudite analysis of the sunni-shiite conflict. Lots of people in the west have an erudite analysis of the sunni-shiite conflict. In fact anyone who has an erudite analysis of the sunni-shiite conflict likes to point out how brilliant they are with their analysis of the sunni-shiite conflict. They might even throw in the fact that they know about alawite distinctions. Quite impressive. However at its core it is rather basic. Large scale Hatfields and McCoys. Just West Virginia with Allah telling them the other side of the river is the pure side. And kill the damn Hatfields.