US voting machines are vulnerable to hackers

[Jovidah]

4 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

I'm not listening to what Trump says on the matter. I'm listening to our current military leaders. They disagree with Hillary and the no fly zone. As far as living in Russia, I see your point. I don't love the guy, but I agree with him on a fair amount of subjects. In fact, you probably would too considering most of it is common sense. I'm assuming you're a democrat? 

Well "current military leaders" isn't a monolithic group. In reality you'll find wide disagreement within that group. Especially since there really isn't a clear 'best solution' to the current situation. Anyone who claim to know the answer is either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

In regards to Putin... well... let's put it this way. I think many people tend to overcomplicate and mystify him simply because they don't know too much about him or about his development over the last ten years. He's certainly intelligent and political-savy. The problem is that he's also rather ruthless - willing to sacrifice both people and international norms just to get his way - and willing to put personal interest over that of the state and the international community. 

 

A lot of what he's been doing over the last few years really hasn't benefitted Russia at all. It's really just turning it into a pariah-state, and as a result the economy is going down the drain. Now because he occasionally manages to exploit western weaknesses, and frustrate their efforts, people suddenly  start thinking he's wildly succesful. You could say that internationally, he has some relative succes. Objectively, he has not been.

 

At the same time I'm not one to proscribe to the 'evil man with a black heart' theory. I think he is neither evil nor good... he is simply emotionless, cold and calculating. A lot of his behavior is easy to explain (and predict) when you consider the events since he came to power. In fact his opposition to the west is IMO a development that was avoidable and unnecessary. He actually tried to reach out a lot to the west early on in his first presidency, and essentially everytime he did got screwed... They were pretty much put in the same position as Iran used to be, where 'working with us' wasn't allowed, thus giving them no other option to work 'against us'. This was all under GWB by the way... I know Obama often gets the blame for screweing up with Russia but that relation was ruined before his watch.

 

That being said...although the west is part-responsible in turning that dog rabid, that doesn't mean we just have to pet it. If a dog goes rabid you either put it down, or put it in the kennel so it can't mess with anyone. There's no point in rewarding unacceptable behavior; you're only going to reinforce it. I have no problems in working 'with' Russia, but we shouldn't do it until they play by the rules.

 

Now on my own position. I'm actually Dutch (but due to my own study background probably more up-to-date on US internal stuff than most Americans). I'm mostly independant...and don't really fall in the clear left-right divide.

 

Although in the US I wouldn't have much of a choice to be democrat, considering my personal position to all the socially conservative aspects of the republican party (since I'm an atheist). I also tend to be rather progressive in socio-economic policy, mostly because I think the traditional right-wing view of social justice simply sucks (as probably everyone agrees who's been holding the shitty end of the stick). However, most lefty tree-hugging policy in regards to foreign affairs and the military is just plain idealist idiocy. Although I'm mostly a social behaviorist, I'm at least aware that the lessons of political realism cannot be ignored.

[christianled59]

5 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

Well "current military leaders" isn't a monolithic group. In reality you'll find wide disagreement within that group. Especially since there really isn't a clear 'best solution' to the current situation. Anyone who claim to know the answer is either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

In regards to Putin... well... let's put it this way. I think many people tend to overcomplicate and mystify him simply because they don't know too much about him or about his development over the last ten years. He's certainly intelligent and political-savy. The problem is that he's also rather ruthless - willing to sacrifice both people and international norms just to get his way - and willing to put personal interest over that of the state and the international community. 

 

A lot of what he's been doing over the last few years really hasn't benefitted Russia at all. It's really just turning it into a pariah-state, and as a result the economy is going down the drain. Now because he occasionally manages to exploit western weaknesses, and frustrate their efforts, people suddenly  start thinking he's wildly succesful. You could say that internationally, he has some relative succes. Objectively, he has not been.

 

At the same time I'm not one to proscribe to the 'evil man with a black heart' theory. I think he is neither evil nor good... he is simply emotionless, cold and calculating. A lot of his behavior is easy to explain (and predict) when you consider the events since he came to power. In fact his opposition to the west is IMO a development that was avoidable and unnecessary. He actually tried to reach out a lot to the west early on in his first presidency, and essentially everytime he did got screwed... They were pretty much put in the same position as Iran used to be, where 'working with us' wasn't allowed, thus giving them no other option to work 'against us'. This was all under GWB by the way... I know Obama often gets the blame for screweing up with Russia but that relation was ruined before his watch.

 

That being said...although the west is part-responsible in turning that dog rabid, that doesn't mean we just have to pet it. If a dog goes rabid you either put it down, or put it in the kennel so it can't mess with anyone. There's no point in rewarding unacceptable behavior; you're only going to reinforce it. I have no problems in working 'with' Russia, but we shouldn't do it until they play by the rules.

 

Now on my own position. I'm actually Dutch (but due to my own study background probably more up-to-date on US internal stuff than most Americans). I'm mostly independant...and don't really fall in the clear left-right divide.

 

Although in the US I wouldn't have much of a choice to be democrat, considering my personal position to all the socially conservative aspects of the republican party (since I'm an atheist). I also tend to be rather progressive in socio-economic policy, mostly because I think the traditional right-wing view of social justice simply sucks (as probably everyone agrees who's been holding the shitty end of the stick). However, most lefty tree-hugging policy in regards to foreign affairs and the military is just plain idealist idiocy. Although I'm mostly a social behaviorist, I'm at least aware that the lessons of political realism cannot be ignored.

Who are we to punish Russia, when we need to be punished ourselves. We aren't the "parents" of the world. The United States over-boasts its own power and is very aggressive. Half the problems in the world are caused by the US. Not to mention, the US has broken international law plenty of time. Russia is just following in our footsteps. 

 

 

Side note: I'm not condemning you for being democrat or republican. on a political compass, I'm right down the middle, just a bit north with authoritarian. 

[SurvivorNVL]

3 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Who are we to punish Russia, when we need to be punished ourselves. We aren't the "parents" of the world. The United States over-boasts its own power and is very aggressive. Half the problems in the world are caused by the US. Not to mention, the US has broken international law plenty of time. Russia is just following in our footsteps. 

 

 

Side note: I'm not condemning you for being democrat or republican. on a political compass, I'm right down the middle, just a bit north with authoritarian. 

I'm right in the Middle and stuck between NazBol and TGSNT.

[christianled59]

On 11/7/2016 at 11:00 AM, SurvivorNVL said:

I'm right in the Middle and stuck between NazBol and TGSNT.

I'm Adolf Hitler. 

 

/jk i'm lower, like between social democrats(slightly above) and liberalism.

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, christianled59 said:

I'm Adolf Hitler. 

 

/jk i'm lower, like between social democrats and liberalism.

Depends on the day, but somedays I'm almost Hitler, and other days TGSNT/NazBol.

I wonder if "Neo-Crusader" could end up on the spectrum?  2016 is pretty based like that.

[christianled59]

Just now, SurvivorNVL said:

Depends on the day, but somedays I'm almost Hitler, and other days TGSNT/NazBol.

I wonder if "Neo-Crusader" could end up on the spectrum?  2016 is pretty based like that.

haha I agree. 

[BiscuitMassacre]

On 11/7/2016 at 11:00 AM, SurvivorNVL said:

I'm right in the Middle and stuck between NazBol and TGSNT.

Apparently I am in like the lower mid-right corner of most political parties in western world.

[Thunderpup]

34 minutes ago, zMeul said:

they who? the EU? is that a joke?

the EU can't find it's ass with a torchlight, a map and a compass

That maybe true, but that doesn't justify saddling the U.S with the responsibility of shielding Europe, or being the primary deterrent against aggressors.

 

Especially considering this is a region where attitudes toward the U.S military as well as the very notion of having a military is deteriorating quickly.  So long as the U.S provides something for free people in the area will not be compelled to do it themselves. 

25 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

Will anyone agree with me that Hillary and her supporter are more Racist and sexist than Trump?

 

IMO it is really sexist to elect a women because she is woman.

Really RACIST to elect obama because he is black. 

 

 

I'll agree to an extent.

I view trump as an oaf with no filter, but isn't inherently racist.

 

I think Hillary's supporters are "more racist", but only because it has been white-washed or justified in a broad sense.

The belief that ethic minorities "can't be racist" is rampant, as well as the belief that it's okay to treat minorities who aren't democrats like garbage.

Plus the prevalence of hidden racism where they will smile to your face while stabbing you in the back.

 

The racist that support Trump are more out in the open and in your face.  I view that as "better" only because you know exactly where they stand and can easily identify them.  

22 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Dare I even mention WW1. If you look at it, the allies were really the bad guys in the war. We won, so we call ourselves the heroes and make germany pay war reps. If we hadn't been the deciding vote to make germany pay for war reps, germany wouldn't have had a bad recession, Hitler would have never rose to power, and WW2 would have been avoided. WW1 was a joke. WW2 was the punchline. 

The U.S was actually against punishing Germany, and did not want France and Britain to humiliate Germany after they surrendered.

 

I point this out to Europeans who claim the U.S took too long to enter WW2.  It wasn't our war to begin with. 

 

10 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Half the problems in the world are caused by the US. 

I really hate this line of thinking as it completely ignores several centuries of empire building by the Europeans.

 

I won't say the U.S. hasn't left its mark in the short time it has existed, both for good and for ill,  but for most of the life of the U.S we primarily kept to ourselves and what little meddling we did was mainly in central america.

 

Europe treated Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America like one big game of monopoly.  Where they extracted wealth, subverted local cultures, and created class systems; all of which have left lasting impacts in those regions.

Now many Europeans essentially have washed their hands of this pretending that their current prosperity was the result of them being European, and blame the U.S for the fallout.  It's either because we interfered in a region that they previously distorted, or we don't spend enough money helping fix regions we haven't interfered in.  

[SurvivorNVL]

7 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

Apparently I am in like the lower mid-right corner of most political parties in western world.

The chart isn't accurate in some senses.  Hillary belongs in the mid-right corner - Trump is more his own space, and Cruz is more the standard mainstream Conserv Israelite candidate.

[SurvivorNVL]

10 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

Apparently I am in like the lower mid-right corner of most political parties in western world.

Most accurate chart around.

[zMeul]

10 minutes ago, Thunderpup said:

Especially considering this is a region where attitudes toward the U.S military as well as the very notion of having a military is deteriorating quickly.  So long as the U.S provides something for free people in the area will not be compelled to do it themselves.

that's absolutely not true

Eastern Europe has always welcomed the US' armed forces - we even have military exercises with combined forces

[BiscuitMassacre]

On 11/7/2016 at 11:25 AM, SurvivorNVL said:

Most accurate chart around.

Where is the MAGA hat?

[SurvivorNVL]

3 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

Where is the MAGA hat?

MAGA hat turns in to Crusader hat once you get woke enough.

[Thunderpup]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

that's absolutely not true

Eastern Europe has always welcomed the US' armed forces - we even have military exercises with combined forces

There's a difference between the government's views/actions and the people's.

 

By your definition the U.S is very welcome in South Korea even though anti-american demonstrations are the norm there. 

 

Further i was primarily referring to attitudes in western Europe where people have become quite comfortable. 

[Jovidah]

I discovered multi-quote!

 

36 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Problem is that if Hillary wins, Demographic change will end up creating a Democrat single-state party for all but a handful of Red states.  They'll hold the electoral college permanently, because Hispanic and Arabic peoples have one inherent advantage over the Euro-American population:  Group-think.  Hence why some Colonels both active and retired have made the remarks, "This is the last peaceful election."

Stop reducing individuals to their ethnic membership. They only start using group-think when they are discriminated or treated by that group membership. The only reason some people are identifying so strongly as Hispanic or Arabic is simply because they are consistently treated in that way. If you stop doing that you can allow all the other billion aspects of their identity to start playing a role. It's not the democrats fault that Trump decided to just piss on all the 'hispanics' to scare them into the other camp. The irony is that many of them are likely to be more socially conservative and would, if not scared off by all the ridiculous scapegoating, actually find more agreement with the republican than with the democrat platform.

I wouldn't worry too much about the 'single party state'. You'll just see parties reinventing themselves, as they have before. The democrat party used to be the anti-black party. The GOP used to be the party of Lincoln. Times change and parties will change, simply to cater to the new electorate. The fact that parties have to actually change and give a crap about what the electorate thinks isn't something you should worry about; it's democracy at work.

31 minutes ago, zMeul said:

they who? the EU? is that a joke?

the EU can't find it's ass with a torchlight, a map and a compass

It varies. I admit that when it comes to common security and defense policy, it's a completely wingless bird. Not in the last part due to strong powers like France and the UK insisting on keeping independence to keep doing their own neocolonial thing. Who knows, maybe things will improve after Brexit? But people forget the EU actually works pretty well in a lot of the 'boring stuff'... trade regulations, fishery regulations, food regulations, etc. etc. It's certainly not perfect, but it's not as crap as people make it out to be.

30 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

In terms of Russia, I don't understand why people are pissed that Trump would want PEACEFUL relations with another NUCLEAR superpower.

 

Like, how dare he actually try to bring peace and not start a world war.  I'm not saying Russia and the US need to be best of friends.  But some kind of partnership were established, we'd be pretty close to achieving world peace.  Two nuclear super powers working together in some aspect.  It would at least help diffuse the situation in eastern Europe.  

The problem isn't trying to have peaceful relations with Russia; I'm all for that. The problem is trying to improve relations with Russia given how they are are behaving now and for the last few years. At best you're setting the world 150 years backwards, creating a new Vienna Concert. At least some of us are hoping international affairs, and international law, had at least developed a bit...

29 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

We're saying we're bombing them, all the images from the ground indicate we've not only been supplying them, but funding them to overthrow Assad, and sow chaos in the region.  We're one of the most corrupt governments and societies in history.  Al-Nusra has never been out-right publicly supported by us, but privately - yes.  Al-Nusra has in many cities in Syria - engaged in forcing conversion and pushing women in to the hijab and greater veil.  The Syrian regime, let's focus on that, then.  They're doing the right thing.  If the civilians are supportive of the violent, anti-moral, near anti-Human practices of hardline Sunnah - those people are a threat to civilized society and what Assad is doing, is warranted.

My critique of U.S. policy is us trying to overthrow Assad, who protects Alawites, Shiites, Kurds(who are a far better variant of Sunnah as a people and practice), and Orthodox Arab Christians.  Look at any part of Syria with rebels, and then look at Damascus - beautiful, free people, women able to wear as they want, and near modern.  Anywhere there is ISIS or Al-Nusra, it's suffering.  It's like Libya without Qaddafi and Iraq when they lost Saddam, which even Iran knows was a mistake(and they fought him) given the horrors that appeared in the region.  

My biggest critique is that the U.S. is in the Middle-East because of Mossad and the GID.

Admittedly US policy has been rather opaque. It's not helped by the fact that some of it's allies (especially Turkey) have been doing their own thing. Considering how bad the current US-Turkish situation is (and the reaction to the coup) I'd be hesitant to claim any Turkish assistance was acutally coordinated with the US.

Now I am certainly not claiming Al-Nusra are saints. Like all rebel groups they'll have some saints, a large (often majority) of average people, and a decent group of outright criminals and fanatic extremists. However, to claim that the Syrian regime is somehow better is really.... short-sighted. They have been responsible for most of the civilian deaths. They have gassed civilian targets. They have been turning Aleppo into the modern-day version of WW2-Leningrad. Their policies of deliberatly targetting medical personel, NGOs and widespread use of torture have been well-documented. Honestly... the only difference between the regime and IS is the flag and the creed...but if you look at morally there really isn't too much of a difference. Assad might claim that all his attrocities are only 'targetting terrorists', but in reality it's been pretty clear that they never have been.

In fact, a lot of the 'terrorists' doing the nasty over there have been deliberately let out of prison to discredit the opposition.

 

On to the secfond paragraph. First, you do realize Alawites and Shiites are the same group right? The minority group that has been in power, monopolizing it for the last few decades, right? And those great Kurds, the white knights of the middle east... you do know they have a far larger percent of females being circumsized than other groups in the region, right? Really...try to restrain yourself from the (admittedly natural) urge to classify the groups into good and bed. It really doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny. It's all shades of grey at best, and frankly the regime doesn't come out looking very bright.

 

Now the US never instigated anything to overthrow Assad. If anything they just sat by and watched... (although the shortage of bombs after the Libya campaign played a role there). This was an independent development within the country. The growth of more religious-oriented groups is mostly caused by their easier access to weaponry (because all the western states have been hesitant to supply, while all the religious groups get their toys from the gulf states), and has actually caused a lot of moderate and non-religious people to join up with groups like Al-Nusra. 

Likewise, while the US is part-responsible for the mess in Libya (although the French were actually the ones most eager to get in there), there isn't any reason why that mess would be any better if they didn't. Actually, in Syria they did exactly (nothing) what people claim they should have done in Libya. The result hasn't been any better. In a lot of ways these are damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. There aren't easy solutions or easy escapes. They're messy and the best you can hope for is trying to limit the bloodletting.

 

Take in mind that both of these countries were pretty long-lasting dictatorships. While it might be attractive to think those are 'stable' and 'good' they inherently aren't. The mess you have now in Syria and Libya is a direct result of all things the dictators had to do before then to stay in power. 

 

29 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Considering the conflict its causing us with Russia, what business do we have over there? I'd honestly say we should have never gotten balls deep fucking with it at all. Let them fight their own civil war and watch russia clean up isis a bit. The US is really good at being two faced assholes in the light of war. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight ISIS, but I don't think its a good idea to defend refugees from Russia who is trying to just get rid of Isis. Inhumanely, sure. But its something. 

Except... Russia hasn't been cleaning up IS. That's what they're claiming, but in reality they've just left them alone to wipe out as much of the rebel groups as they could. Their whole strategy has been all along to simply take out the moderates, leave IS alone, to leave the west with a binary choice between IS and Assad (knowing they'd settle for the latter). Russia really has only one objective and that is securing Assad. They don't care about anything else, or the fallout that results from it.

25 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Quite frankly, we need to pull out of the middle east entirely and only have a presence in or near ally nations.  (Such as Israel, for example).

Take the leash of of Israel, point them at ISIS and Iran, sit back, let them take care of it.  (Oh, and also end that horrible Iran deal)
We need to get out of the middle east though.  Let them sort themselves out.  The only chance we had at bringing some stability was when Russia was in Syria.  If we had worked with them, ISIS would of been finished.

But no, we squandered that chance, so now this is what we should do.  (IMO)

Actually if you were pulling out of anything, the smart thing would be to pull out of Israel. The unconditional support for Israel has been the core grievance of all Islamic groups opposing the US. And this support hasn't really.... helped anyone. Cut that support and Israel would finally be forced to normalize relations with the Palestinians. You could probably solve that conflict within a few years.

 

To think that Israel would just go and take out IS and Iran is nonsensical. They really have no reason to do anything at all about this. This has been a giant boon for them; all their enemies are too busy fighting and weakening eachother so nobody cares about Israel anymore. Also, to think they are omnipotent and can simply solve this easily is... clearly mistaken. Just look at their last incursion into Lebanon, when Hezbollah gave them quite the bloody nose.

And again... to think that working with Russia is the solution against IS is... well.. shortsighted. They'll simply support and use this groups whenever it's opportune. They have no reason to help taking a thorn out of 'our' side.

24 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Best example of American assholery:  1950's Iran.  They loved us.  Saw us as an ally.  They nationalized their oil, kicked the British Empire out.  Brits whine to us, say Commies are there, and we overthrow a possible ally and trade-partner, install a King, he does exactly what the people don't want, for US, and then they install an Islamic State.  Legitimately.  We fuck everything up that we touch.  Hell, WW2 with the Japanese was avoidable, but we put sanctions and embargoes, knowing what it would do.

Fully agree with you there. All this colonial era stuff was really idiotic. I think this was under Dulles's watch as foreign secretary? If you look up his rep sheet you can see that he was responsible for a lot of the really monumentally shortsighted decisions the US made in that era. 

But this is also exactly why I'm against supporting Assad. You'd simply be repeating history. Supporting another nasty dictator simply because you think he'd be more friendly than the alternative, regardless of whether he has internal legitimacy or how he treats his population. That's exactly the kind of stuff that breeds opposition, rebellion and terrorism.

20 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

I've never seen Trump be racist, honestly.  FDR put Japs in prison camps when they were seen as a threat to America.  Jimmy Carter barred Iranian immigration and deported them actively, even if they were American citizens.  Trump calls for temporary bans and a halt to immigration from affected areas and a complete stop of refugees, due to, I don't know--Europe proving a prime example.  Given there was 20 jihadists found in the German military of all things now.  Germany really screwed the EU.

Actually I tend to somewhat agree with you there. In the sense that... I don't think Trump himself is necessarily very racist. He just doesn't have a problem with blowing all the racist dogwhistles and polarizing the entire population of the country, scapegoating minority groups and essentially fueling racism for his own political gain. Not sure if that's any better though.

And Germany..... hasn't screwed anyone. They're one of the few who hasn't been incredibly shortsighted. Most of us have been wasting all the soft power we'd been building up over the last few years in the interest of placating xenophobic plebs. The German policy is unlikely to fuel jihadism; it's more likely to counter it. 

If you really want to look at a bad example, look at France. Their current problem is a result of decades years of shit policy (or sometimes total lack of policy). The mistake isn't allowing groups of people in. The mistake is allowing groups to be both geographically and economically segregated, marginalized and discriminated on a regular basis, and consistently giving groups of people the feeling that they're second class of citizens. That's fertile ground for any recruiter.

19 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Dare I even mention WW1. If you look at it, the allies were really the bad guys in the war. We won, so we call ourselves the heroes and make germany pay war reps. If we hadn't been the deciding vote to make germany pay for war reps, germany wouldn't have had a bad recession, Hitler would have never rose to power, and WW2 would have been avoided. WW1 was a joke. WW2 was the punchline. 

I somewhat agree with you there. Traditionally the story is indeed that the Germans are the bad guys. While I'm unwilling to go along and claim any side was good or bad, I think it's pretty fair to say that both sides were equally grey. The over-the-top results Versailles treaty certainly did pave the way for WW2. 

But this is pretty much something I'd say about almost all conflicts. We like to think in black and white, and history is often written this way. But it makes a lot more sense to leave these value-loaded labels at the door and just look at it objectively... you'll pretty soon see nothing but greys.

18 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Or Kosovo.  Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Or when Reagan, the golden goose of Conservatives, blessed the world with funding Al Qaeda.

Yeah...well... I think Kosovo and Bosnia are pretty universal of examples of the US getting it right for ones. You can say what you want, but under Milosevic, the Kosovarians and the Muslims were mostly victims. Admittedly, Tudjman (Croatia) should also have been sued for war crimes, but the US was right to intervene. Kosovo was essentially unfinished business of the first Yugoslav war; Kosovarians were being marginalized ever since Milosevic came to power in the 80s. In fact (interestingly enough) he came to power on a ticket of scapegoating them. There are quite some parallels between Milosevic and Trump.

17 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

WW1 would've turned Europe German, and at that time, historically, they were the good guys, and Europe would be a non-EU based continental empire.  Hell, WW1 is when concentration camps were invented--by the British, and they starved German civilians and soldiers as punishment.

There really weren't good or bad guys. All were just doing what they thought was best for their own interests. There might be good actions and bad actions, but the actions executed by the different actors are far too diverse to aggregate them into a single value-determination about the actors.

6 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Who are we to punish Russia, when we need to be punished ourselves. We aren't the "parents" of the world. The United States over-boasts its own power and is very aggressive. Half the problems in the world are caused by the US. Not to mention, the US has broken international law plenty of time. Russia is just following in our footsteps. 

 

 

Side note: I'm not condemning you for being democrat or republican. on a political compass, I'm right down the middle, just a bit north with authoritarian. 

Oh the US certainly had its share of missteps... the invasion of Iraq - especially the bad decisions AFTER the invasion - but that's no reason to just stop giving a damn, throw international law & norms out of the window and just say 'fuck it...let's just let them do their thing'. Maybe the US doesn't have the best position to check their behavior, but they're the only ones who can. At least at times they have shown to at least somewhat care...

My main worry is that we are currently seeing a negative development of international norms. And that's a development we want to stop right here and right now. But I admit I am equally frustrated about a lot of policy by US and other European actors that is also rather detrimental in the greater scheme of things. There is still too much neocolonial bullcrap going on.

[zMeul]

13 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

It varies. I admit that when it comes to common security and defense policy, it's a completely wingless bird. Not in the last part due to strong powers like France and the UK insisting on keeping independence to keep doing their own neocolonial thing. Who knows, maybe things will improve after Brexit? But people forget the EU actually works pretty well in a lot of the 'boring stuff'... trade regulations, fishery regulations, food regulations, etc. etc. It's certainly not perfect, but it's not as crap as people make it out to be.

that's not even the tiniest bit related to the military

 

an EU military alliance is non-existent, it's a free-for-all

back in 2010, The Western European Union (a military alliance with a mutual defense clause) was disbanded and the role passed to NATO: http://www.weu.int/Declaration_E.pdf

Quote

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, a new phase in European security and defence begins. Article 42.7 of the Treaty on the European Union now sets out that, if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, and states that commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments in NATO, which for its members remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. 

facepalm

 

it's even more egregious as France asked for a EU military force - I've already commented (at that time) on that idiocy

France needs to swallow it's socialist pride and join NATO

[Jovidah]

On 11/7/2016 at 11:22 AM, Thunderpup said:

 

The U.S was actually against punishing Germany, and did not want France and Britain to humiliate Germany after they surrendered.

 

I point this out to Europeans who claim the U.S took too long to enter WW2.  It wasn't our war to begin with. 

Yeah Woodrow Wilson had most of the right ideas after WW1. A shame most of the European powers thought 'screw it' and wanted to mostly continue their colonial thing. It's really a shame... although there is a valid argument that ever since the cold war started, the US has been a bit of a dick internationally, they used to be quite progressive in the early half of the 20th century. 

 

In regards to WW2... I don't know if there's much to critique the US in the first place. Roosevelt wanted to join earlier but couldn't get the support. Even then, the US supplies & materiel were the lifeline that kept both the UK and the Soviet Union in the fight. Although the whole 'saints on white horses' historiography of the US in world war 2 doesn't necessarily hold up to closer scrutiny, in general it's still the best example of the US trying to do the right thing. 

Even when its behavior versus Japan (oil sanctions) are widely considered as triggering the Pacific war, I find it to be a bit disingenuous for critisizing the US for wanting to do something about the Japanese adventures in China that were killing millions of innocents.

Quote

I really hate this line of thinking as it completely ignores several centuries of empire building by the Europeans.

 

I won't say the U.S. hasn't left its mark in the short time it has existed, both for good and for ill,  but for most of the life of the U.S we primarily kept to ourselves and what little meddling we did was mainly in central america.

I agree. Colonialism was a European invention. Funny fact... the Japanese were actually rather isolationist and really only started doing the nasty colonial thing until they literally learned it from European advisors. 

Quote

Europe treated Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America like one big game of monopoly.  Where they extracted wealth, subverted local cultures, and created class systems; all of which have left lasting impacts in those regions.

Now many Europeans essentially have washed their hands of this pretending that their current prosperity was the result of them being European, and blame the U.S for the fallout.  It's either because we interfered in a region that they previously distorted, or we don't spend enough money helping fix regions we haven't interfered in.  

It's a pretty fair point. This is also why a lot of people on 'the other side' tend to talk so much about 'The West'. We're all considered part of the same guilty entity even though some of us like to pretend that we bettered ourselves...

Besides, the UK and France really haven't changed all that much; they're still trying to play neocolonial overlord in Africa and the Middle East.

On 11/7/2016 at 11:42 AM, Thunderpup said:

There's a difference between the government's views/actions and the people's.

 

By your definition the U.S is very welcome in South Korea even though anti-american demonstrations are the norm there. 

 

Further i was primarily referring to attitudes in western Europe where people have become quite comfortable. 

To be fair though, I think this has shifted a bit. Anti-Americanism really only started during the Iraq war, when the US suddenly decided 'hey, fuck international norms, let's just invade somewhere', took a giant dump there, and then wondered why everyone disliked them.

Things have certainly improved since Obama came to power though. But no one has done more to increase support for US presence in Europe than Putin and his actions in Ukraine. Military budgets are rising again and support for NATO is about as strong as it has ever been. 

[christianled59]

40 minutes ago, Thunderpup said:

 

The U.S was actually against punishing Germany, and did not want France and Britain to humiliate Germany after they surrendered.

 

The US wasn't "against" the treaty of versailles. The senate did in fact deny it, although it was actually in favor of the treaty; just not the necessary 2/3 vote. However, the president actually personally negotiated the treaty of versailles. Arguably, the leading representative of the United states, so therefore the US was in favor of punishing germany. 

 

Fact check me if I'm wrong, but the burden of proof is on you.

[spartaman64]

what if trump wins and hes been saying the election is going to be rigged would that be considered a confession lol

[BiscuitMassacre]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

what if trump wins and hes been saying the election is going to be rigged would that be considered a confession lol

It is currently rigged, even if he does win tho. (i got your joke, just elaborating).

 

The media is blowing everything he ever did WAY out of proportion and not giving a crap about the HUGE abominations hillary has done. Hillary could full out sink Africa, and CNN would say that is better than if TRUMP told an Arab not to hurt anybody. 

[spartaman64]

Just now, BiscuitMassacre said:

It is currently rigged, even if he does win tho. (i got your joke, just elaborating).

 

The media is blowing everything he ever did WAY out of proportion and not giving a crap about the HUGE abominations hillary has done. Hillary could full out sink Africa, and CNN would say that is better than if TRUMP told an Arab not to hurt anybody. 

so if he wins the election that is being rigged then it was rigged for him. and if he knew before hand that means he has some knowledge of it if not participating. so it is a confession if he wins

[BiscuitMassacre]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

so if he wins the election that is being rigged then it was rigged for him. and if he knew before hand that means he has some knowledge of it if not participating. so it is a confession if he wins

I know. I got your joke. But he says its rigged against him. and it is. Regardless if he wins. 

[Brian McKee]

The problem with this election is that people drop all skepticism to believe in what they want to believe. We're in a time where evidence is real as long as enough people think it's real, not when it actually is. I could go on wikileaks and create a convincing document that Hilary wanted to overthrow the drug lords in Miami so they stop encroaching on her business, I imagine people would eat that up too despite not being based anywhere in fact.

 

As for vulnerable voting machines. Well that's great, but who cares? Even if a group managed to rig dozens of machines it would make no difference. They'd have to rig countless machines over many states for it to even matter, this fear is unreasonable given the logistics of it. There would be too many people involved, some evidence would shine like a bright star.

On 11/7/2016 at 0:15 PM, BiscuitMassacre said:

I know. I got your joke. But he says its rigged against him. and it is. Regardless if he wins. 

People who think it's rigged against him are deluded into thinking that everyone thinks Trump is a lesser evil (or god forbid a legitimately good candidate), which he's not.

[BiscuitMassacre]

2 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

People who think it's rigged against him are deluded into thinking that everyone thinks Trump is a lesser evil (or god forbid a legitimately good candidate), which he's not.

What? He is a GREAT candidate. I agree with almost everything he says. (almost)

 

I just think the media and the establishment should chill the heck out. I watched this video on NBC (i think) about Trumps Star getting destroyed. And this was a public attack and vandalism against Trump and the city. These sad little beings were actually congratulating this man for doing this. They said they hated trump so much that this was a good thing. So I can justify saying the media is rigging the thing against him in the eyes of the common man. 

[TidaLWaveZ]

4 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

The problem with this election is that people drop all skepticism to believe in what they want to believe. We're in a time where evidence is real as long as enough people think it's real, not when it actually is. I could go on wikileaks and create a convincing document that Hilary wanted to overthrow the drug lords in Miami so they stop encroaching on her business, I imagine people would eat that up too despite not being based anywhere in fact.

 

As for vulnerable voting machines. Well that's great, but who cares? Even if a group managed to rig dozens of machines it would make no difference. They'd have to rig countless machines over many states for it to even matter, this fear is unreasonable given the logistics of it. There would be too many people involved, some evidence would shine like a bright star.

While a lot of people are naive, you absolutely cannot just go onto wikileaks and post a convincing document.  You don't have the power to post on wikileaks at all and if you sent in a document it would likely be thrown out because it has no evidence whatsoever.  

 

7 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

People who think it's rigged against him are deluded into thinking that everyone thinks Trump is a lesser evil (or god forbid a legitimately good candidate), which he's not.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but don't tout it as fact because it's not.