|
Post by hammered on Nov 21, 2016 14:50:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 21, 2016 19:26:31 GMT
America (and Britain and others to be fair) only ever offers countries like Libya and Syria a binary option. Either we bomb the living shit out of everything and leave behind civil wars, failed states and countless dead, or we do nothing. We should never have removed Colonel Gaddafi in the way we did. We were warned against it by countless experts but our arms industry (which practically owns Hillary Clinton) demanded otherwise. Gaddafi's arms stash has found its way to militant psychopaths across the wider region from Boko Haram to IS. We should have found ways to facilitate a far more stable, peaceful transfer of power over a longer period. Re: Syria, we should've considered not funding IS and continuing to back them for as long as we did. Again, we should've tried to facilitate a less destructive transfer of power. Perhaps if, instead of constantly goading Russia, we'd worked with them from the start, this might have been possible. And no I don't agree that invading countries and taking their oil would work. It's what Barack and Hillary did in Libya, incidentally - like I say, no better than Trump. I like your thoughts. I doubt it would work - why would Gaddafi negotiate and give more freedoms if we'd let him break into Misrata and slaughter the moderates? Maybe Gaddafi staying in power would have been better but lots would argue that. I dunno what'd be better, but don't you think that your choice would probably mean Gaddafi in power and a lot of dead and imprisoned moderates in Libya too? With Clinton v Trump I doubt Trump'll be better. His buddies love bombing stuff, especially if it kills brown people. This is the party that invaded Iraq and invaded Afghanistan and loves it when he talks about murdering innocent families and torturing prisoners and invading countries and taking their oil. Given his campaign was backed by Russian hackers, I'd be pretty worried if I was an Estonian or Finn. Basically, as a fan of democracy and freedoms I'm worried about Trump, if I was an enemy of Western democracy like Putin, then I'd be thrilled. I think you're right to be worried. We do live in unstable and uncertain times. I agree about Putin too, although I'd add the caveat that we've mishandled him (and Russia generally) for a long time. For one thing, there's a dangerous lack of empathy on our part. Imagine Putin led an equivalent NATO organisation and had just brought Canada and Mexico under his sphere of influence. And that both countries were run by people who said and did anti-US stuff all the time. Are you telling me the US wouldn't act as Putin did with Ukraine? Of course they would. It's a delicate situation and clearly we shouldn't be pursuing a policy of appeasement per sé. But I think if we tried to see things from the other perspective a bit more, we might enjoy a more productive relationship with them We need to abandon this presumption that we're right and good, and that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong and bad. It might well be true in many cases but it shouldn't inform our entire foreign policy. It's overly simplistic and doesn't accommodate the reality that when people and cultures are different the world over, it's a complex challenge. We train our children to tolerate differences in opinion so why do we allow our politicians to go round attacking people who they don't like at will? As for Gaddafi, I find it interesting that we're always sold this line about nuking Japan - it saved lives in the long run so it was a necessary evil. Moral arguments aside, that may very well be true. We'll never know. Yet we never apply that same logic to bombing people with large oil supplies or who inhabit key geopolitical regions. For example, that bodybag pragmatism we used to justify Hiroshima is ridiculed by people like Blair when discussing his wars. Yet there can be no doubt that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would've resulted in far fewer casualties than the second Gulf War. The same can be said of Libya. Gaddafi wasn't a nice man by any stretch but his citizens nonetheless enjoyed higher standards of health and education than millions of Americans. It's fair to say that nowadays they do not. Equally, Libya didn't used to be a staging post for boatloads of refugees, a base for Hiluxloads of IS nutters, or a vast uncontrolled arms bazar for the very worst lunatics in sub-Saharan Africa. Nowadays it is I'm not offering some grand foolproof solution to this because I'm not an expert geopolitical strategist by any means. But I don't think you need to be one to at least see that our current foreign policies just don't work. Of that much I'm sure. I guess I like to think that if we took all the will, intellect and energy that's currently poured into "advanced" weapon systems and invested it instead into finding more peaceful solutions, then we might have a chance at making the world a more stable place. Perhaps I'm an eternal optimist but there we go Sorry for the long ramble - good discussion to have and it's interesting stuff to debate in a good natured way
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 22, 2016 20:43:43 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed!
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 22, 2016 21:26:29 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed! Ah the good old aunty beeb, totally impartial/unbiased as ever pity they can not see the wood for the trees.
|
|
|
Post by capto on Nov 22, 2016 22:39:12 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed! Prove it? The bit I've read about them seems to show they are far right - you can put any label on the can you want - prove that they are not far right?
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Nov 22, 2016 22:46:49 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed! Prove it? The bit I've read about them seems to show they are far right - you can put any label on the can you want - prove that they are not far right? Surely you have to prove they are? What have Paul or Milo said which 'proves' they're Neo-Nazi's? Being concerned with un-controlled immigration doesn't make you a Neo-Nazi. Being concerned with Islam's views on gay people doesn't make you a Neo-Nazi.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 23, 2016 6:23:39 GMT
or it could be the leftie bbc having a dig as things werent going their way?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 23, 2016 6:25:00 GMT
You never heard of appeasement? That solved problems for millions of people. If you think putin and trump are doing anything for the good of mankind you need to study politics history and just about everything Precisely. The problem with many on here is that they only deal in absolutes. Hillary Clinton is awful, ergo Donald Trump must be preferable. The sad fact is that the world would have benefited hugely from both candidates being sent on one-way trips to Dignitas. It is entirely possible for both candidates to be equally awful overall but to be awful in different ways. And anyone who honestly thinks that Donald Trump will do anything to curb the excesses of the economic system that put him where he is today is either thick or mad I'm afraid the problem with many on here? is we all fick ?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 23, 2016 8:15:02 GMT
Precisely. The problem with many on here is that they only deal in absolutes. Hillary Clinton is awful, ergo Donald Trump must be preferable. The sad fact is that the world would have benefited hugely from both candidates being sent on one-way trips to Dignitas. It is entirely possible for both candidates to be equally awful overall but to be awful in different ways. And anyone who honestly thinks that Donald Trump will do anything to curb the excesses of the economic system that put him where he is today is either thick or mad I'm afraid the problem with many on here? is we all fick ? No but many do deal solely in absolutes as I say. It's certainly easier to see the world in black and white but it's very divisive and it plays completely into the hands of those much-hated establishment elites who just want to divide and rule. The Brexit debate is a classic case study. Both sides are still just either defending or attacking rather than trying to lay down arms and come together for a sensible discussion. It's a problem we have in society as a whole to be fair. That said, some on here are fairly thick
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 23, 2016 15:30:33 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed! I see Breitbart, that bastion of impartiality, has already turned on Trump for one more broken promise to lock up Clinton! Give it a few weeks and his supporters, there and on here, will be saying we knew all along he wasn't going to do any of the things he said he would. Sounds very familiar doesn't it!
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 23, 2016 15:47:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Nov 23, 2016 15:56:51 GMT
Do you think they'll start calling government by twitter..twitment?
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 16:01:07 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed! I see Breitbart, that bastion of impartiality, has already turned on Trump for one more broken promise to lock up Clinton! Give it a few weeks and his supporters, there and on here, will be saying we knew all along he wasn't going to do any of the things he said he would. Sounds very familiar doesn't it! I've not yet read the Breitbart article but on tbe face of it calling him out for a broken promise isn't harsh - it's true objectively. Also, if Hillary is indeed in bad health (as many suspect) then pursuing her will reinforce the media cliché of him being brutish and unsympathetic. Breitbart et al are biased but it's a bias that serves a purpose as it balances out the bias of the mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 23, 2016 16:13:41 GMT
I see Breitbart, that bastion of impartiality, has already turned on Trump for one more broken promise to lock up Clinton! Give it a few weeks and his supporters, there and on here, will be saying we knew all along he wasn't going to do any of the things he said he would. Sounds very familiar doesn't it! I've not yet read the Breitbart article but on tbe face of it calling him out for a broken promise isn't harsh - it's true objectively. Also, if Hillary is indeed in bad health (as many suspect) then pursuing her will reinforce the media cliché of him being brutish and unsympathetic. Breitbart et al are biased but it's a bias that serves a purpose as it balances out the bias of the mainstream. Can you clarify what you mean by 'the mainstream'?
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Nov 23, 2016 16:21:37 GMT
I see he has appointed an Indian American (not Native American) as US ambassador to the UN, funny that for a racist woman hater.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 23, 2016 16:42:06 GMT
I see he has appointed an Indian American (not Native American) as US ambassador to the UN, funny that for a racist woman hater. Wonder if that balances out him appointing a known racist as Attorney General and a known Islamophobe as National Security Adviser...
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 16:46:00 GMT
I've not yet read the Breitbart article but on tbe face of it calling him out for a broken promise isn't harsh - it's true objectively. Also, if Hillary is indeed in bad health (as many suspect) then pursuing her will reinforce the media cliché of him being brutish and unsympathetic. Breitbart et al are biased but it's a bias that serves a purpose as it balances out the bias of the mainstream. Can you clarify what you mean by 'the mainstream'? Yes. The ones that suck the schlong of authority. Notables examples include: CNN NBC ABC BBC NPR and PBS public radio Sky MSNBC
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Nov 23, 2016 16:47:09 GMT
I see he has appointed an Indian American (not Native American) as US ambassador to the UN, funny that for a racist woman hater. Wonder if that balances out him appointing a known racist as Attorney General and a known Islamophone as National Security Adviser... ???????????????
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 23, 2016 16:49:11 GMT
Wonder if that balances out him appointing a known racist as Attorney General and a known Islamophone as National Security Adviser... ??????????????? You've never played one I take it? ;D
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 23, 2016 16:50:35 GMT
Can you clarify what you mean by 'the mainstream'? Yes. The ones that suck the schlong of authority. Notables examples include: CNN NBC ABC BBC NPR and PBS public radio Sky MSNBC I see, and these are all guilty of the same bias, are you saying? Which would be...
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Nov 23, 2016 16:52:34 GMT
Xylophone, yes Islamophone, no.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 16:54:10 GMT
Yes. The ones that suck the schlong of authority. Notables examples include: CNN NBC ABC BBC NPR and PBS public radio Sky MSNBC I see, and these are all guilty of the same bias, are you saying? Which would be... Pro Democrat party.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 23, 2016 17:11:55 GMT
I see, and these are all guilty of the same bias, are you saying? Which would be... Pro Democrat party. Newscorp hasn't traditionally been pro-Democrat has it? It was certainly pro-Bush and its donations are split fairly evenly between the two?
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 17:35:17 GMT
Newscorp hasn't traditionally been pro-Democrat has it? It was certainly pro-Bush and its donations are split fairly evenly between the two? Murdoch changes his allegiances. What about those others, or are we just going to focus on Sky? More importantly, why bother trying to find the truth in the world when you can have that nice Fiona Bruce spoon feed it through the telly? Happy days.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 23, 2016 17:53:47 GMT
Newscorp hasn't traditionally been pro-Democrat has it? It was certainly pro-Bush and its donations are split fairly evenly between the two? Murdoch changes his allegiances. What about those others, or are we just going to focus on Sky? More importantly, why bother trying to find the truth in the world when you can have that nice Fiona Bruce spoon feed it through the telly? Happy days. 'Truth' can be pretty subjective though can't it? I take it you're a big fan of The Guardian as well, as its biases cancel out the widespread right wing bias of most of the British press?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 23, 2016 17:59:15 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed! Well according to Wikipedia, the phrase "alt-right" was coined by a white nationalist who promotes his views through "mainstream punditry" so the lines are blurred mate yes Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978)[1] is an American white nationalist, known for promoting white supremacist views,[2][3][4] often through the viewpoint of mainstream punditry.[5] He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think-tank, and Washington Summit Publishers, an independent publishing firm. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian.[6] Both Spencer and others have said that he created the term "Alt-right,"[7] a term he considers a movement about white identity.[8][9][10]
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 18:19:01 GMT
Some deceitful reporting from the BBC here... www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469They are trying to confuse and associate neo-nazis with the "alt-right"! The mainstream media is starting to react to the emerging alt-right with its growing credibility, the likes of Infowars, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson et al by trying to shame them and depict them as extremists, which is nonsense. Blurring the lines indeed! Well according to Wikipedia, the phrase "alt-right" was coined by a white nationalist who promotes his views through "mainstream punditry" so the lines are blurred mate yes Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978)[1] is an American white nationalist, known for promoting white supremacist views,[2][3][4] often through the viewpoint of mainstream punditry.[5] He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think-tank, and Washington Summit Publishers, an independent publishing firm. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian.[6] Both Spencer and others have said that he created the term "Alt-right,"[7] a term he considers a movement about white identity.[8][9][10]Wikipedia in an age of disinformation, hmmm... "and the viewpoint of mainstream punditry" is a curious phrase in its own right. Alt-right can best be judged on its content as that is what the public consumes, just as we can judge mainstream media on its content. There isn't a trace of white supremacism in any of the content I've seen from what is recognised as alt-right. If Milo and Alex Jones are so readily identified as figureheads/poster children for it then why how come we don't hear them promote white supremacy? Since Daddy won, the spin against Trump has got worse than ever. And this is a new front in a shitty war.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 23, 2016 18:40:14 GMT
Well according to Wikipedia, the phrase "alt-right" was coined by a white nationalist who promotes his views through "mainstream punditry" so the lines are blurred mate yes Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978)[1] is an American white nationalist, known for promoting white supremacist views,[2][3][4] often through the viewpoint of mainstream punditry.[5] He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think-tank, and Washington Summit Publishers, an independent publishing firm. Spencer has stated that he rejects the description of white supremacist, and describes himself as an identitarian.[6] Both Spencer and others have said that he created the term "Alt-right,"[7] a term he considers a movement about white identity.[8][9][10]Wikipedia in an age of disinformation, hmmm... "and the viewpoint of mainstream punditry" is a curious phrase in its own right. Alt-right can best be judged on its content as that is what the public consumes, just as we can judge mainstream media on its content. There isn't a trace of white supremacism in any of the content I've seen from what is recognised as alt-right. If Milo and Alex Jones are so readily identified as figureheads/poster children for it then why how come we don't hear them promote white supremacy? Since Daddy won, the spin against Trump has got worse than ever. And this is a new front in a shitty war. I can't help thinking that you're judging the accuracy of the media based mainly on which sections of it reinforce your existing opinions though In many ways, Wikipedia ought to be lauded by the alt-right. It's independent, not for profit, written by ordinary folk.... But then it doesn't agree with you so you choose to not trust it.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 19:07:31 GMT
Wikipedia in an age of disinformation, hmmm... "and the viewpoint of mainstream punditry" is a curious phrase in its own right. Alt-right can best be judged on its content as that is what the public consumes, just as we can judge mainstream media on its content. There isn't a trace of white supremacism in any of the content I've seen from what is recognised as alt-right. If Milo and Alex Jones are so readily identified as figureheads/poster children for it then why how come we don't hear them promote white supremacy? Since Daddy won, the spin against Trump has got worse than ever. And this is a new front in a shitty war. I can't help thinking that you're judging the accuracy of the media based mainly on which sections of it reinforce your existing opinions though In many ways, Wikipedia ought to be lauded by the alt-right. It's independent, not for profit, written by ordinary folk.... But then it doesn't agree with you so you choose to not trust it. No. If I wanted to reinforce my existing opinions I wouldn't come on here for a start. If Hillary can influence CNN et al so much I don't think she'd have much compunction at getting her staff, fresh from another screaming fit, to nobble a Wikipedia page or two. It might be true what you said about that Spencer guy, he could walk round in a klan outfit shouting "alt-right" like that lady who used to shout "Sentnul" up Hanley for all I care, it wouldn't make articles from what is recognised by the public before this apparent smear campaign as "alt-right" suddenly white supremacist etc. Do you think Milo Yiannopoulos is a neo-nazi for example, even if the BBC imply he's from that kind of crowd? I feel daft even asking the question it's that absurd an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Nov 23, 2016 19:22:07 GMT
Murdoch changes his allegiances. What about those others, or are we just going to focus on Sky? More importantly, why bother trying to find the truth in the world when you can have that nice Fiona Bruce spoon feed it through the telly? Happy days. 'Truth' can be pretty subjective though can't it? I take it you're a big fan of The Guardian as well, as its biases cancel out the widespread right wing bias of most of the British press? If I had to rely on the press for my news then I would seek some balance, so I'd read the Guardian a bit. I've noticed this with the way you debate on here. Rather than address the issue you seek hypocrisy or lack of credibility in the other person's argument. So the mainstream media, please go ahead and defend it, I'm all ears duck...
|
|