U.S. Politics Thread

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by kyp275

No way they'll send ground forces back in, there's not the political will nor public support for it.

However, they HAVE authorized limited airstrikes, so we'll see how that pans out:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Well drone and push-button warfare is the wave of the future after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Those two wars have pretty much drained any appetite for ground invasions for a whole generation.

On the other hand, the US is still trying to maintain it's two war front projection capabilities iirc.

Speaking of which, the Veterans Affairs reform bill just got signed. One of the rare major pieces of health reform legislation that actually got passed in this absurd 114th congress.

Originally Posted by The Hill

President Obama on Thursday signed a $16.3 billion bill to overhaul the troubled Veterans Affairs Department, saying the country had a “sacred duty” to protect its military service members.

The bill, approved by Congress last week, would allow veterans to seek private care outside VA facilities, and would also provide money for the VA to hire more doctors and nurses. The effort came after reports that some veterans had waited months to get care from the VA.

“As a country, we have a sacred obligation to serve you as well as you served us,” Obama told an audience of military service members, veterans and their family members at Fort Belvoir in Virginia. “We are going to spend each and every day working to do right by you and your families.”

Thinking about it, the Obama legacy on healthcare is pretty huge. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, and Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 has pretty much touched all sectors of public and private health spending in the United States with changes in the Private Insurance market, Medicare, Medicaid and now the Veterans Affairs system.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by kyp275

No way they'll send ground forces back in, there's not the political will nor public support for it.

However, they HAVE authorized limited airstrikes, so we'll see how that pans out:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Give the Kurds the weapons and supply they need. The Kurds are willing and able to fight ISIS but Obama is not willing to give them weapons because they are afraid the Kurds will split off form the rest of iraq.

i don't know why the US keep trying to keep iraq together.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again

this describe Iraq in a nutshell. The quicker Obama realize this the better.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Give the Kurds the weapons and supply they need. The Kurds are willing and able to fight ISIS but Obama is not willing to give them weapons because they are afraid the Kurds will split off form the rest of iraq.

i don't know why the US keep trying to keep iraq together.

this describe Iraq in a nutshell. The quicker Obama realize this the better.

Look at how much oil there is under the land.

Or maybe we can get to them by just slant drilling from Kuwait.......

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Give the Kurds the weapons and supply they need. The Kurds are willing and able to fight ISIS but Obama is not willing to give them weapons because they are afraid the Kurds will split off form the rest of iraq.

i don't know why the US keep trying to keep iraq together.

this describe Iraq in a nutshell. The quicker Obama realize this the better.

Well it seems Joe Biden's three part partition plan in 2007 is coming to fruition. Too bad at the time the idea was laughed at in the mainstream media.

Even now for some reason the idea is still unpopular.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Netto Azure

Well it seems Joe Biden's three part partition plan in 2007 is coming to fruition. Too bad at the time the idea was laughed at in the mainstream media.

Even now for some reason the idea is still unpopular.

The Kurds will merge with Kuwait, the Shia will go with Iran, and the rest of Iraq will collapse like Afghanistan - it isn't a good idea in the first place.

U.S. bombs Islamic State after Obama call to prevent Iraq 'genocide'

"The planes attack positions they think are strategic, but this is not how we operate. We are trained for guerrilla street war," he said. "God is with us and our promise is heaven. When we are promised heaven, do you think death will stop us?"

It is about time we sent them there. In 1991, Saddam rolled over Kuwait and Bush Sr. bombed the crap out of him, the world gave a thumbs up. Maybe once again after decade of screw-ups, US should just fucking do something right again.

[Lord of Fire]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is about time we sent them there. In 1991, Saddam rolled over Kuwait and Bush Sr. bombed the crap out of him, the world gave a thumbs up. Maybe once again after decade of screw-ups, US should just fucking do something right again.

Keep in mind that the US themselves created the mess Iraq is in right now. I doubt ISIS would have gotten any foothold in the country at all had Saddam not been dethroned and executed.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

Keep in mind that the US themselves created the mess Iraq is in right now. I doubt ISIS would have gotten any foothold in the country at all had Saddam not been dethroned and executed.

Bush Jr era I think, originally US should have just rolled over into Iraq, but that would spook Iran.

I say let Saudi Arabia and Kuwait roll over Iraq this time while US provides support; at least having US allies handle their own shit would be better. Though with the SAD tied up in Syria, I wonder how is US going to help the peshmerga fight the ISIS.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Solace

The money flowing into politics these days is from the FIRE economy. It used to be manufacturing, but the labor economy died out by the 1980s (and with it, most union power). The US is purely a service economy now, and labor has no real power anymore.

It's all good to single out the Koch brothers, but even if you removed their money/influence it wouldn't change much. Most of the top donors for both parties in the last presidential election, for example, were from Ag and FIRE, with education (colleges) and health (pharma) following suit.

I think you're going to have to elaborate because as far as I can see that is not true.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

I see quite a few unions towards the top on this list and they all support obviously the democrats. Especially on a state level, their influence can have profound effects. In California in particular, they are bleeding the state dry with early retirement pensions and other nonsense. Not that this single issue is enough for me to support the Republicans, somehow our state budget got balanced with a super majority of Democrats that could actually get things done, but it is one of various issues that are tied directly to who each party serves.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

Keep in mind that the US themselves created the mess Iraq is in right now. I doubt ISIS would have gotten any
foothold in the country at all had Saddam not been dethroned and executed.

So you're saying that if a ruthless dictator was in power in Iraq, ISIS would've never taken hold? You may want to ask Assad how that's working out for him in Syria.

If you really want to play the blame game, fundamentally most of these problems can be traced straight back to the Europeans. Much like they did in Africa, the European colonial powers gave little thoughts when they cut up the Ottoman empire piecemeal for themselves, arbitrarily creating countries out of a mixture of ethnic groups with no national identity of their own. This is why stuff like this happens - they are Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis before they're Iraqis.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by kyp275

So you're saying that if a ruthless dictator was in power in Iraq, ISIS would've never taken hold? You may want to ask Assad how that's working out for him in Syria.

If you really want to play the blame game, fundamentally most of these problems can be traced straight back to the Europeans. Much like they did in Africa, the European colonial powers gave little thoughts when they cut up the Ottoman empire piecemeal for themselves, arbitrarily creating countries out of a mixture of ethnic groups with no national identity of their own. This is why stuff like this happens - they are Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis before they're Iraqis.

Kurds, Turks, Persians and Arabians.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by kyp275

So you're saying that if a ruthless dictator was in power in Iraq, ISIS would've never taken hold? You may want to ask Assad how that's working out for him in Syria.

Assad's a doctor. He would never use chemical weapons on his own people. He's not ruthless enough.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I think you're going to have to elaborate because as far as I can see that is not true.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

I see quite a few unions towards the top on this list and they all support obviously the democrats. Especially on a state level, their influence can have profound effects. In California in particular, they are bleeding the state dry with early retirement pensions and other nonsense. Not that this single issue is enough for me to support the Republicans, somehow our state budget got balanced with a super majority of Democrats that could actually get things done, but it is one of various issues that are tied directly to who each party serves.

Most of those unions are for public employees, not private. Roughly 11% of all US employees are union, with 6% of that being private sector. When comparing public versus private unions, it's not even close. Private unions are nearly dead in the US, and public unions have increasingly spent more time defending what they have rather than bargaining for more.

Here's 2013's Department of Labor's union breakdown.

[Ojiisan]

My usual venue is The Goddess Project, but politics and foul language are verboten there, so I'm here (for the politics, not the four-letter words).

IMNSHO (in my not so humble opinion), it makes little difference who resides in La Casa Blanca as POTUS (or FLOTUS). That worthy is merely a front man or woman for those who really hold the power.

Furthermore, I believe that this has been true for a very long time before any of you were merely a twinkle in your father's eye.

Who be they? H-m-m-m-m.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by kyp275

So you're saying that if a ruthless dictator was in power in Iraq, ISIS would've never taken hold? You may want to ask Assad how that's working out for him in Syria.

If you really want to play the blame game, fundamentally most of these problems can be traced straight back to the Europeans. Much like they did in Africa, the European colonial powers gave little thoughts when they cut up the Ottoman empire piecemeal for themselves, arbitrarily creating countries out of a mixture of ethnic groups with no national identity of their own. This is why stuff like this happens - they are Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis before they're Iraqis.

Not all dictators are ruthless. Assad is actually a great ruler, his people love him and he's technically not even Sunni or Shi'ite, he's part of a Gnostic sect of Islam. People blindly love democracy even though autocracy is much better in all cases. If the majority of people do something heinous, who do you hold responsible? 51% of the population? If a tyrant does something heinous, you can usurp him, yet dictators more often than not feel a personal connection with the people whom they steward, they are like their children. The same people who are trying to undermine Assad, who have undermined the rest of the Islamic world's leaders were responsible for the spread of democracy and usury into Europe during the Renaissance. Capitalism is far more insidious than feudalism because it is difficult to recognize the inherent slavery that is usury. Communism is more insidious than Capitalism for the same reason, it makes you believe you are free. If the United States is to truly become the land of the free that it has always considered itself, they must adopt an autocratic and autarkic system. Imagine South Africa had Nelson Mandela been dictator instead of bending his knees to democracy, or a United States where George Washington became King.

Edit: Sidenote: Gadaffi was actually a far more compassionate ruler than any elected "leaders" of history. Newlyweds under Gadaffi's regime were given 50k to buy a home. Everyone got free education and shelter, and a livable salary for those who could not find work. This system of government is known as socialism, the same system most ancient agricultural civilizations utilized. They simply didn't call it that because they never conceived of an alternative way to govern, and this is the kind of government Socrates and Pythagoras before him supported.

[kyp275]

not sure if trolling.

just in case though, did Assad's people love him more or less after he bombed and gassed them? since you're such a huge fan, you must know.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by kyp275

not sure if trolling.

just in case though, did Assad's people love him more or less after he bombed and gassed them? since you're such a huge fan, you must know.

Assad didn't gas his own people, and there was no evidence of the legitimate Syrian government even having chemical weapons. They found the components for mustard gas...and I'm sure every person in the world has those components in their house as well (bleach and ammonia). Israel on the other hand, the ones who were calling for US intervention in Syria because of their supposed moral high ground regarding chemical warfare and the Holocaust, have stockpiles of chemical weapons they refuse to get rid of. Can't mossad the Assad, though. Still on his autocratic grind.

[kyp275]

i guess the chemical weapons they've been destroying never really existed then, you may want to send them a memo telling everyone it was all just a dream.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by kyp275

i guess the chemical weapons they've been destroying never really existed then, you may want to send them a memo telling everyone it was all just a dream.

Just like the WMDs in Iraq, right? Just like how Saddam Hussein was killing the honorable Christian Kurds?

Don't believe every thing you're spoonfed by Israel. They have too many horses in this race to be considered reliable, and US sources have such hardons for Israel that they'll gladly gobble up whatever they shoot in their direction. Regime change is the name of the game, the goal to introduce usury into the Muslim world and reduce the barriers between bankers and the people. Those barriers being autocratic government systems that genuinely care about their citizens and aren't just parasites on their constituents.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

Just like the WMDs in Iraq, right? Just like how Saddam Hussein was killing the honorable Christian Kurds?

Don't believe every thing you're spoonfed by Israel. They have too many horses in this race to be considered reliable, and US sources have such hardons for Israel that they'll gladly gobble up whatever they shoot in their direction. Regime change is the name of the game, the goal to introduce usury into the Muslim world and reduce the barriers between bankers and the people. Those barriers being autocratic government systems that genuinely care about their citizens and aren't just parasites on their constituents.

Not sure if trolling or having a literacy problem.

Send a memo to Reuters and AFP for us please. And the PLAN.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

People blindly love democracy even though autocracy is much better in all cases. If the majority of people do something heinous, who do you hold responsible? 51% of the population? If a tyrant does something heinous, you can usurp him, yet dictators more often than not feel a personal connection with the people whom they steward, they are like their children.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is true no matter the form of government. It's possible to have a benevolent dictatorship, but historically speaking, they don't last very long, the transitions are brutal, and the new guy will probably be worse than the one he replaced. If not immediately, soon after.

Originally Posted by kyp275

i guess the chemical weapons they've been destroying never really existed then, you may want to send them a memo telling everyone it was all just a dream.

Chemical weapons were used, but no one can confirm who used them. Even now, there's still doubts about which side is using them or if both sides are at fault.