Poll

Who do you think will be sworn in as President on Jan. 21?

Biden
- 14 (66.7%)
Trump
- 7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 194   Go Down

Author Topic: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)  (Read 111565 times)

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #40 on: June 25, 2020, 05:23:52 pm »

Also, they were able to make a deal with Turkey and Syria, and things are quiet there again

Things are quiet there except for renewed protests followed with bombing by Russian jets on a number of villages in northwest Syria in the past couple of weeks. Then last week, new White House sanctions against Assad's support and Syria's dire economic situation.

But overall, yeah, it is better. Unless of course, you have a Russian bomb coming at you.
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #41 on: June 25, 2020, 10:01:14 pm »

Things are quiet there except for renewed protests followed with bombing by Russian jets on a number of villages in northwest Syria in the past couple of weeks. Then last week, new White House sanctions against Assad's support and Syria's dire economic situation.

But overall, yeah, it is better. Unless of course, you have a Russian bomb coming at you.
Not America's problem.  We shouldn't be involved.  Can you imagine if we had troops there trying to sort out that mess among the Turks, Russians, Syrians, Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians, and all the other terrorist players jockeying for power, territory and control of oil? 

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1190
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2020, 11:15:28 pm »

Not America's problem.  We shouldn't be involved.  Can you imagine if we had troops there trying to sort out that mess among the Turks, Russians, Syrians, Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians, and all the other terrorist players jockeying for power, territory and control of oil?

Yeh, America never went onto foreign soil to control oil.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #43 on: June 25, 2020, 11:50:23 pm »

So someone can't have a differing point of view from yours, regarding the change in policy towards Kurdish allies, and be an American? That will surprise a lot of Republicans that condemned the policy!

Indeed.

But anyway only history will judge who is pro or anti American.

My view is that the hard core Trump supporters will go down as being profoundly anti-american.

I don’t see how you can disagree deeply with both Obama and Bolton and be pro-American.

Cheers,
Bernard

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3612
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #44 on: June 25, 2020, 11:55:05 pm »

Not America's problem.  We shouldn't be involved.  Can you imagine if we had troops there trying to sort out that mess among the Turks, Russians, Syrians, Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians, and all the other terrorist players jockeying for power, territory and control of oil?

I don't need to imagine because US forces never left Syria. They're there today in Eastern Syria trying to avoid getting into conflicts with Russian and other forces in the area.

Voice of America News June 03, 2020: "Each day there are conversations between leaders here in the coalition and Russian leaders in Syria, where we share and exchange information on where our patrols will go," Caggins said, adding that there have been encounters between the two sides at times.

"Those encounters are normally resolved in a professional manner. And what we've seen in recent days was the United States escorting a Russian patrol out of an area that was not de-conflicted in eastern Syria," he told VOA.

The American official added that U.S.-led coalition "doesn't seek to have any escalations" with the Russians. "We certainly call on the Russians to not do anything to have an escalation or interfere with the SDF mission to defeat Daesh," he said, using an Arabic acronym for IS.
  https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/russia-eyes-military-expansion-northeast-syria

The US is also currently protecting Syrian oil fields. These are frequent hotbeds of activity. 

NPR March 26, 2020: It's early morning in northeast Syria. It's sunny and chilly. Capt. Alex Quataert briefs his soldiers on the day's patrol.

"In the last 48 hours we've had two attacks on critical petroleum infrastructure," he says. The convoy will visit one of those sites today. "So we're going to have a show of presence there to deter any further attacks on these forces," Quataert says.

The mission for U.S. forces in Syria is now more complex — and possibly more dangerous. Though U.S. forces are doing a variety of things in Syria, 29-year-old Quataert says, "our primary mission is to secure the oil infrastructure for use of our partner force."

These soldiers had to quickly move east last fall when Turkish troops invaded cutting U.S. supply lines and threatening U.S. forces.
  https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821379862/u-s-forces-in-syria-tackle-a-more-complex-and-possibly-dangerous-mission

The withdrawal of US troops in Syria, last October, was only from one region of Syria. The "Buffer Zone" along the Turkish / Syrian border.

Quoting from NPR article above again: That all happened because President Trump essentially gave the green light for Turkey to invade, then tweeted that all U.S. troops would be leaving Syria. Soldiers here and in neighboring Iraq refer to that order as simply, "the Tweet."

But Trump reversed himself because military officials convinced him. The White House allowed hundreds of U.S. troops to stay and secure the oil fields for Kurdish forces.

U.S. forces in Syria work with a group of Kurdish and Arab fighters, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, the SDF.

"They are the partner force that primarily defeated the physical caliphate — the actual ISIS-controlled area," says Quataert, a small, compact and serious West Point graduate from Rochester, N.Y. He says ISIS is not defeated yet.


You see... What the US did last October was simply remove the US Special Forces teams, that were embedded with our SDF (Kurdish) allies, away from those forces along the Turkish border, leaving them to be killed or trying to escape. The only thing that had prevented Turkey from attacking the Kurds, before then, were those embedded US Special Forces. Turkey did not want a conflict with US soldiers and consequently the US. You might understand now why so many Republicans (and Democrats) were harshly critical of that policy.

The Kurds have a fascinating, and also sad, history that dates back centuries. You should read up on it. They've basically been screwed over for hundreds of years by everybody. In the last hundred years, at the end of World War I when the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) was defeated along with their German allies by US, French, and British forces, The Kurds were promised that Kurdistan (their home region) would be recognized as an independent nation. However, Turkey declared that they would keep fighting if the Kurds were given recognition as a nation; and they did keep fighting. So, the US, British, and French then renegotiated the armistice treaty (1923) and divided up the Middle East with new boundaries which created new nations, except for Kurdistan. Kurdistan was left partly in Turkey, partly in Syria, partly in Iraq, and partly in Iran. This left them as a minority in all of those countries instead of being a majority in their own country. They are a people with their own language, culture, history, territory; but no country.

The Turks have been trying to destroy the Kurds since the Armenian genocide shortly before WWI. In Turkey, until 1991, the use of the Kurdish language was illegal as was Kurdish music, clothing, or any other Kurdish cultural inheritance. They were not even allowed to be called Kurds, they were called Mountain Turks. The words Kurds, Kurdistan, or Kurdish were officially banned by the Turkish government. Education in Kurdish is now permitted but only in private institutions. From 1984 to 1999, the Turkish military destroyed houses and villages in the Turkish portion of Kurdistan. An estimated 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey were virtually wiped off the map.

That's it. I'm done. I just wanted to give a little history in the hope that it might nudge some further interest of a few people to learn more.


Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18099
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2020, 06:13:01 am »

... I don’t see how you can disagree deeply with both Obama and Bolton and be pro-American.

Extremely easy.

P.S. Bernard, your Japanese perspective is sorely needed in the Olympus SOLD thread. Do something useful there, instead of wasting your anti-Trump energy here ;)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2020, 08:58:30 am »

I don't need to imagine because US forces never left Syria. They're there today in Eastern Syria trying to avoid getting into conflicts with Russian and other forces in the area.

Voice of America News June 03, 2020: "Each day there are conversations between leaders here in the coalition and Russian leaders in Syria, where we share and exchange information on where our patrols will go," Caggins said, adding that there have been encounters between the two sides at times.

"Those encounters are normally resolved in a professional manner. And what we've seen in recent days was the United States escorting a Russian patrol out of an area that was not de-conflicted in eastern Syria," he told VOA.

The American official added that U.S.-led coalition "doesn't seek to have any escalations" with the Russians. "We certainly call on the Russians to not do anything to have an escalation or interfere with the SDF mission to defeat Daesh," he said, using an Arabic acronym for IS.
  https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/russia-eyes-military-expansion-northeast-syria

The US is also currently protecting Syrian oil fields. These are frequent hotbeds of activity. 

NPR March 26, 2020: It's early morning in northeast Syria. It's sunny and chilly. Capt. Alex Quataert briefs his soldiers on the day's patrol.

"In the last 48 hours we've had two attacks on critical petroleum infrastructure," he says. The convoy will visit one of those sites today. "So we're going to have a show of presence there to deter any further attacks on these forces," Quataert says.

The mission for U.S. forces in Syria is now more complex — and possibly more dangerous. Though U.S. forces are doing a variety of things in Syria, 29-year-old Quataert says, "our primary mission is to secure the oil infrastructure for use of our partner force."

These soldiers had to quickly move east last fall when Turkish troops invaded cutting U.S. supply lines and threatening U.S. forces.
  https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821379862/u-s-forces-in-syria-tackle-a-more-complex-and-possibly-dangerous-mission

The withdrawal of US troops in Syria, last October, was only from one region of Syria. The "Buffer Zone" along the Turkish / Syrian border.

Quoting from NPR article above again: That all happened because President Trump essentially gave the green light for Turkey to invade, then tweeted that all U.S. troops would be leaving Syria. Soldiers here and in neighboring Iraq refer to that order as simply, "the Tweet."

But Trump reversed himself because military officials convinced him. The White House allowed hundreds of U.S. troops to stay and secure the oil fields for Kurdish forces.

U.S. forces in Syria work with a group of Kurdish and Arab fighters, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, the SDF.

"They are the partner force that primarily defeated the physical caliphate — the actual ISIS-controlled area," says Quataert, a small, compact and serious West Point graduate from Rochester, N.Y. He says ISIS is not defeated yet.


You see... What the US did last October was simply remove the US Special Forces teams, that were embedded with our SDF (Kurdish) allies, away from those forces along the Turkish border, leaving them to be killed or trying to escape. The only thing that had prevented Turkey from attacking the Kurds, before then, were those embedded US Special Forces. Turkey did not want a conflict with US soldiers and consequently the US. You might understand now why so many Republicans (and Democrats) were harshly critical of that policy.

The Kurds have a fascinating, and also sad, history that dates back centuries. You should read up on it. They've basically been screwed over for hundreds of years by everybody. In the last hundred years, at the end of World War I when the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) was defeated along with their German allies by US, French, and British forces, The Kurds were promised that Kurdistan (their home region) would be recognized as an independent nation. However, Turkey declared that they would keep fighting if the Kurds were given recognition as a nation; and they did keep fighting. So, the US, British, and French then renegotiated the armistice treaty (1923) and divided up the Middle East with new boundaries which created new nations, except for Kurdistan. Kurdistan was left partly in Turkey, partly in Syria, partly in Iraq, and partly in Iran. This left them as a minority in all of those countries instead of being a majority in their own country. They are a people with their own language, culture, history, territory; but no country.

The Turks have been trying to destroy the Kurds since the Armenian genocide shortly before WWI. In Turkey, until 1991, the use of the Kurdish language was illegal as was Kurdish music, clothing, or any other Kurdish cultural inheritance. They were not even allowed to be called Kurds, they were called Mountain Turks. The words Kurds, Kurdistan, or Kurdish were officially banned by the Turkish government. Education in Kurdish is now permitted but only in private institutions. From 1984 to 1999, the Turkish military destroyed houses and villages in the Turkish portion of Kurdistan. An estimated 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey were virtually wiped off the map.

That's it. I'm done. I just wanted to give a little history in the hope that it might nudge some further interest of a few people to learn more.



This was all hashed out before you came to the party.  Check earlier threads about this subject. The main point I made then and make again is that it is not in America's interest to get involved securing a homeland for the Kurds in opposition to our NATO ally Turkey. We've spent enough treasure and lost enough blood in the Middle East trying to sort out the craziness there that will never be resolved regardless what we do.   While it would be nice for the Kurds to have a homeland, it doesn't become America's responsibility. The Kurd history was something European and other countries caused and who didn't do anything to correct for a hundred years. 

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4561
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2020, 09:53:16 am »

Regardless of their technique, it's a single algorithm from a left leaning British organization.  What is their track record of predictions?  After all this is a new algorithm.  Why should we believe their results?

The Economist is not "left-leaning." It's perhaps the only news outlet I have seen that is regularly judged "dead center" by the groups that rate these things (e.g., Quora, AllSides, MediaBiasFactCheck).  Of course, to some people "left-bias" means "to the left of me."
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4561
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #49 on: June 26, 2020, 09:57:12 am »

I don't remember that I ever referred to him just as "Hussein," but most likely using his full name Barack Hussein Obama.

Then again, nomen est omen. If "John" would indicate something special, I would probably use it too.

Well, "john" is a euphemism for toilet.
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #50 on: June 26, 2020, 10:01:59 am »

Well, "john" is a euphemism for toilet.
It also means a prostitute's client.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #51 on: June 26, 2020, 10:06:51 am »

The Economist is not "left-leaning." It's perhaps the only news outlet I have seen that is regularly judged "dead center" by the groups that rate these things (e.g., Quora, AllSides, MediaBiasFactCheck).  Of course, to some people "left-bias" means "to the left of me."
Their bias seems to depend on what subject they're writing about.  They seem pretty left-liberal to me.  In any case, regardless which way they lean, their new polling algorithm is, well, new.  No proven track record.  Trusting their predictions alone doesn't seem smart.

Analysis / Bias

"In review, The Economist takes an editorial stance of classical and economic liberalism that supports free trade, globalization, open immigration, and social liberalism. There is minimal use of loaded language in both headlines and articles such as this: America’s new attitude towards China is changing the countries’ relationship. In fact, most articles are well written with very low emotional bias. Economically, The Economist leans right, but they also support such initiatives as a carbon tax and environmental protectionism, which are not right wing positions. Editorially, The Economist endorses both Republicans and Democrats in the United States. For example, the have endorsed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2016, while endorsing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in earlier elections. In the UK they most recently endorsed the Liberal Democrats, which hold left leaning libertarian positions. One criticism of The Economist is that a majority of their articles are penned anonymously, which they explain is to maintain a continuity of writing. They do however, provide a media directory where you can view who is involved in writing and editing."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4561
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #52 on: June 26, 2020, 10:07:44 am »

Explains his pro-Muslim policies, in addition to the facts that his father was a Muslim, half-brother, his relatives, he was raised in a Muslim religious school.

The claim that he attended "a Muslim school" gets a "pants on fire" from Politifact.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #53 on: June 26, 2020, 10:09:51 am »

It also means a prostitute's client.
I think we need a definition for "ad hominem" attack. 

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4561
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #54 on: June 26, 2020, 10:22:06 am »

Good point.  Actually, it would be useful if all forum participants would fill out the Location field in their respective user profiles.  Because, at least to some extent, "Where you stand depends on where you sit."

I do not agree. I challenge you to say what it means if someone is, like me, from North Carolina.
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #55 on: June 26, 2020, 10:30:51 am »

Trusting their predictions alone doesn't seem smart.
Nobody has suggested that. Look at the poll or not. Entirely your decision. Nobody really cares.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2020, 10:38:31 am by faberryman »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2020, 10:40:32 am »

I do not agree. I challenge you to say what it means if someone is, like me, from North Carolina.
Well, first we know you're American.  Many people here are not.  So their positions regarding American foreign affairs such as regarding tariffs and trade may be distorted by their desire for policies that favor their countries.  A reader of their point of view would then understand their position is prejudiced.

Even in your case, stating that you're from North Carolina, a southern state would make your argument in favor of Black Lives Matter, if you hold that position, more powerful.  Otherwise, people might assume you're just another Yankee from another northern liberal state and would favor the organization. (edit) 

Thus, Chris's "where you stand depends on where you sit" provides support for letting people here know where you're from. I support his point wholeheartedly.

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4794
    • Robert's Photos
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #57 on: June 26, 2020, 10:54:47 am »

This is podcast from NPR's Fresh Air program. It is an interview with Ann Applebaum who wrote a recent article in The Atlantic analyzing the behaviour of GOP and administration officials and how they seem to acquiesce to many of Trump's proto-authoritarian impulses, something to which they would have been normally opposed, https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/869783127/why-gop-leaders-back-trumps-proto-authoritarian-cult. She likens this to a form of collaboration that is due to several motivations and there is a discussion of those.

Just a word of warning to Trumpeteers, this podcast is not a safe space for you. It contains disturbing descriptions of Trump's actions since being elected, nothing new but you won't enjoy them. If you at all sensitive, best not to listen. ;)
Logged
--
Robert

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #58 on: June 26, 2020, 11:01:55 am »

This is podcast from NPR's Fresh Air program. It is an interview with Ann Applebaum who wrote a recent article in The Atlantic analyzing the behaviour of GOP and administration officials and how they seem to acquiesce to many of Trump's proto-authoritarian impulses, something to which they would have been normally opposed, https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/869783127/why-gop-leaders-back-trumps-proto-authoritarian-cult. She likens this to a form of collaboration that is due to several motivations and there is a discussion of those.

Just a word of warning to Trumpeteers, this podcast is not a safe space for you. It contains disturbing descriptions of Trump's actions since being elected, nothing new but you won't enjoy them. If you at all sensitive, best not to listen. ;)
Why are you surprised that members of a party, whether Republican or Democrat, support their party's president?  That's how it works.  How many Democrats didn't support Obama?  You either stick together or all hang separately. 

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1190
Re: US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)
« Reply #59 on: June 26, 2020, 11:56:03 am »

Why are you surprised that members of a party, whether Republican or Democrat, support their party's president?  That's how it works.  How many Democrats didn't support Obama?  You either stick together or all hang separately.

Or grow a set and call a spade a spade as you see it rather than behaving like one of those dogs on the dashboards that continually nod their heads.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 194   Go Up