Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jeeez DSL, when was it that a nation state did not act in their own self interests?

I think it monumentally naive that anyone would think we can actually shape outcomes unilaterally in the modern age. And no, I do not accept that the US should be the world's policeman. I do accept that multilatreal approaches to problem solving where there are mutual interests in doing so is the way ahead. American hegemony has no place in finding that way ahead.

[SeattleLionsFan]

For one, I don't mind necessarily the tawdry relationships. I do mind a candidate for president saying a two bit dictator is a great leader and saying he is a better leader than our current president.

[froot loops]

For one, I don't mind necessarily the tawdry relationships. I do mind a candidate for president saying a two bit dictator is a great leader and saying he is a better leader than our current president.

Exactly

[hack]

The thing with Russia and Putin is that it's running fumes. Putin has only a few tools in his kit, and the rest is smoke and mirrors. Power is perception, so being a stick in the mud vis-a-vis the global powers furthers his goals. Hence, Syria. The sooner Russia runs out of gas (metaphorically), the less often we'll see it opposing us on the world stage just because it barely can. This particular bilateral power dynamic is a zero-sum game. Trump is setting us back a fair bit here, because while it's a victory for Putin to have a seat at the table for, say, Syria, it's a smashing success for him to be seen as screwing around with internal US politics. Trump is hurting the US on the global stage with this crap.

So, good thing the DNC rigged it for Hillary. She's practically running unopposed and it's not a foregone conclusion. Pathetic.

[froot loops]

When Trump said he could murder someone on 5th Avenue and not lose votes, he was wrong, I'm sure murder would lose him some votes. But there is literally nothing he can say that will dissuade the die hards.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jeeez DSL, when was it that a nation state did not act in their own self interests?

I think it monumentally naive that anyone would think we can actually shape outcomes unilaterally in the modern age. And no, I do not accept that the US should be the world's policeman. I do accept that multilatreal approaches to problem solving where there are mutual interests in doing so is the way ahead. American hegemony has no place in finding that way ahead.

I think proponents of American exceptionalism have to believe, to some degree or another, even if just superficially, that America has a "greater purpose" in the world than any other nation. Now if you're a believer in realpolitik, then fine, everything is primarily guided by self-interest first, and if everyone can gain at the same time that's great. The obnoxiousness comes when you mix realpolitik actions with "exceptionalist" rhetoric.

[hack]

I may be a liberal but foreign policy is about looking after national interests abroad. Period. Mind you it isn't a simple calculation. Being the world's policeman makes it safe for American multinationals to go compete. And it isn't as easy as the calculation seemed under Kissinger. It may in the end have been a false economy to prop up dictators in the Middle East. We got a few decades of relative stability but we're going to pay in pain for a few decades now. Kissinger would never have done what Bush/Cheney did, mind you, so there's the argument that you do your thing and don't kick the hornet's nest, but IMO there's a very interesting debate to be had about how much room there is for shared interests/short-term sacrifices within the framework of realpolitik.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I may be a liberal but foreign policy is about looking after national interests abroad. Period. Mind you it isn't a simple calculation. Being the world's policeman makes it safe for American multinationals to go compete. And it isn't as easy as the calculation seemed under Kissinger. It may in the end have been a false economy to prop up dictators in the Middle East. We got a few decades of relative stability but we're going to pay in pain for a few decades now. Kissinger would never have done what Bush/Cheney did, mind you, so there's the argument that you do your thing and don't kick the hornet's nest, but IMO there's a very interesting debate to be had about how much room there is for shared interests/short-term sacrifices within the framework of realpolitik.

That's the sort of thing I'm trying to point at...when realpolitik decisions create new (possibly worse) problems a generation later. Obviously some decisions look like masterful stratagems at the time only to blow up in your face down the road. IMO it's happened to the US a lot.

Like I said I worry too that practicing realpolitik eventually leads you to conclude that damn near every conflict around the globe is of vital national interest. I feel like there's bound to be mission creep.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Wild Hoss]

What is the point?

The point is find a release for all the libr'l-hatin' that builds up over the course of a week spent circle-jerking in Breitbart forums.

[Wild Hoss]

Jeeez DSL, when was it that a nation state did not act in their own self interests?

I think it monumentally naive that anyone would think we can actually shape outcomes unilaterally in the modern age. And no, I do not accept that the US should be the world's policeman. I do accept that multilatreal approaches to problem solving where there are mutual interests in doing so is the way ahead. American hegemony has no place in finding that way ahead.

Why do you hate America Jeff?

[Wild Hoss]

That's the sort of thing I'm trying to point at...when realpolitik decisions create new (possibly worse) problems a generation later. Obviously some decisions look like masterful stratagems at the time only to blow up in your face down the road. IMO it's happened to the US a lot.

One of my personal faves is Afghanistan. We undermined the Soviets efforts there, only to find ourselves in the same fight 20 years later. But, Commies.

I had this idea for a movie...Rambo V. Stallone goes back to Afganistan to kill the kid that helped him in Rambo III, who has grown into a Taliban warlord. Could've been great.

[Da Geezer]

Do you agree with Trump Hannibal? Is Putin better than Obama?

http://detroitlionsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5052&page=558

Froot: Please watch the exchange. Trump says Putin is a good leader within" that system" but Trump says he (Trump) doesn't like the system. Trump further states that Trump bases his opinion on Putin v. Obama on the fact that Obama has divided our country. That is true. Trump could have said that Putin is more popular in his country than Obama is in ours. That is how Trump is viewing the matter in his answer. Please watch the video. Only the controlled media is alleging that Trump said Putin is a better leader than Obama.

I agree with virtually all of what Talent has said. This whole question is nothing but a fart in a windstorm.

As an aside, though, I can't see how anyone can compare leaders when there are substantial differences in when they ruled, and where they ruled. There are just too many variables involved.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Frank Luntz with a strong troll game

[ame]https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/774273374629408768[/ame]

[Wild Hoss]

Yeah, but who wins in a hair-off between DJT and Kim?