American Politics Discussion Thread

[Jowy]

Never mind . Why to ban? because he thinks bad about us? Because he thinks we are still primitive? And whats  8chan? its worth to google it?

Ya every place has rules and almost all of them ban racists. Hence why racists and other such people congregate on those few places that do not have rules, like the site mentioned. It's also why any website that does not have rules will undoubtedly devolve into an alt right shithole.

Anyway mods can choose to do what they want, that's just my opinion. If we're going to be talking about things like whether racism good or bad, then it's not really a discussion that I have any interest participating in.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

As an aside I mentioned it much earlier, but the main point of democracy isn't necessarily that it is more effective in the short term, it is that it avoids power grabbing and civil war later. You know a democracy with actual good controls in place.... I will very much state that the US is far from perfect. Even though it wasn't a true democracy the republic of Rome lasted 480 odd years before it was overtaken by authoritarians. The constant churn / internal civil war and quality of which I will very much argue led to its eventual downfall.

The institutions of the Roman republic lasted even after Rome had been sacked. Praetors and such were still elected.

The authoritarianism of Rome began far earlier with Sulla, by which point it was extremely dysfunctional.

Make of this what you will.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Destabilization of the middle-east is beneficial to maintain right-wing hegemony at home, and a calculated play by the military-industrial complex.

Your accusations of ignorance and naïveté would be a lot more credible if you didn't spout wild conspiracy theories with less supporting evidence than a Trump attorney before a judge .

Darrell

Idk what confused and low-information world you live in, but:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/201...-timeline/
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12123022/ge...s-iraq-war
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/trum...e-for-war/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/evidenc...epresented
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ort-213530
https://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/

CIA was on the ground in Iraq well in advance of the war. They knew it would happen.
https://archive.org/details/operationhotelca00tuck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_Attack

Fear about immigrants and refugees is part of what got Trump elected. What caused that? Middle East destab. 1

https://web.archive.org/web/201303061656...92330.html
Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush's first two National Security Council meetings included a discussion of invading Iraq. He was given briefing materials entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," which envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001 was titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," and included a map of potential areas for exploration.

The Bush admin lied to get us into war. I'm sure clueless 'moderates' like you bought it. This war and response to 9/11 gave the republicans their only popular vote victory in the past 8 elections in 2004.

The US is a right-wing country, with an ultra-right wing military apparatus.

Edit:
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402...-four-days
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...syria-iraq
"The U.S. war against terrorism has been hampered by double standards. During the 1980s, for example, the Nicaraguan contras—armed, trained, and effectively created by Washington—were responsible for far more civilian deaths than all terrorist groups supported by all Middle Eastern countries combined. In addition, the most serious single bombing attack against a civilian target in the history of the Middle East was the March 1985 blast in a suburban Beirut neighborhood that killed 80 people and wounded 200 others. The attack was ordered by CIA director William Casey and approved by President Ronald Reagan as part of an unsuccessful effort to assassinate an anti-American Lebanese cleric. The U.S. role in the bombing, which was widely reported throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, has lent Washington’s crusade against Middle Eastern terrorism little credibility in much of the world. (Though the initial report of U.S. involvement made the leading front-page headline of the New York Times and was described in detail in Bob Woodward’s book Veil, it is rarely ever mentioned by so-called experts on Middle Eastern terrorism in the United States.) The perpetrators have never been brought to justice."

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/...0035-6.pdf
https://reason.com/2015/10/22/us-squad-g...ddle-east/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4328954?seq=1
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/13/false-flag/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline...allah.html
https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0405/p99s01-duts.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan
https://mepc.org/transparent-cabal-neoco...est-israel
https://newrepublic.com/article/156266/n...trike-back


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1...0701616443
The US therefore  generates  not  stability  but  an  ‘empire  of  chaos’  since  it  is  capable  of overthrowing regimes it dislikes but not of reconstructing stable replacements. The line between  hegemony  built  on  consent  and  delivering  stability  and  empire  built  on  force and  potentially  destabilizing  of  world  order  is  far  thinner  than  HST  realizes.  Hence,theories  of  empire  must  be  addressed  and  indeed,  the  Iraq  war  is  the  single  most important event undermining the credibility of HST and bringing the idea of US empire back into mainstream discourse. (HST is hegemonic stability theory)

An alternative, more specific explanation is that the war served the class interests of the establishment. Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler argue that the war served the needs of  ‘dominant capital.’49The US boom of the 1990s, which had been driven by mergers,acquisitions and the globalization of investment, was exhausted by 2000, and US capital faced  a  crisis  of  overproduction  and  deflation.  To  get  out  of  this,  they  argue,  an alternative strategy of inflation, which historically leads to a redistribution of wealth from labor to capital and from small to larger firms enjoying price power, was on the agenda;the main driver of inflation is booming oil prices and the single most important driver of oil prices is Middle East conflict. The problem with this explanation is that war on Iraq was  an  extremely  risky  strategy  that  could  well  destabilize  the  world  economy  that benefits  from  stable  moderate  oil  prices.  Nor  is  this  view  easily  reconciled  with  the opposition to the war from the mainstream foreign policy establishment. The absence of broad corporate opposition to the war suggests acquiescence but not enthusiasm for it. As Pieterse observes,  not only  is  there  no  ‘capitalist  necessity’  in preventive  war  but also corporations cannot afford to be risk takers on this scale, while de-territorialized hi-tech capitalism  in  a  world  dominated  by  neo-liberal  international  economic  institutions  no longer  has  the  need  for  territorial  control  of  economic  resources  typical  of  the  age  of imperialism.

The seizure of Iraq’s pivotal oilfields  would  make  appeasement  of  the  Arabs  superfluous;  Iraq  could  be  used  to  break OPEC and destabilize unfriendly Muslim oil states. In short, the seizure of Iraq would allow  the  US  to  secure  access  to  Arab  oil  without  Arab  alliances

Let's also look at CIA destabilization tactics:
https://cryptome.wikileaks.org/2012/08/cia-congress.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/...0029-7.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/...0001-5.pdf


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...ime_change

And try harder than calling what i'm saying a "conspiracy theory". Read a bit.

[darrelljs]

Uh. Yeah.

Darrell

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Uh.  Yeah.

Darrell

I'm linking news sources, authoritative articles from journals, and the word of the CIA itself, from released documents.


If you think this is a conspiracy theory, point out to me how.
Destabilization of the middle-east is beneficial to maintain right-wing hegemony at home, and a calculated play by the military-industrial complex.

Does the US destabilize the middle east?
Yes.
Does it do so on purpose?
Look at CIA documents. Of course!
Is this done to create the appearance of outside threats?
Yes.
Is war in the middle east a pre-planned action?
Yes, otherwise Iraq wouldn't have happened.

The only mistake I made - Destabilization of the middle-east is beneficial to maintain right-wing hegemony at home **AND ABROAD***, and a calculated play by the military-industrial complex.


Please, put more effort in next time. I really have to restrain myself here...

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Oh and if you deny the existence of the Military Industrial Complex,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y

https://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244...ears-later

From the words of President "I like Ike" himself.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/dissent_report.pdf

9/11 provided an excuse to silence dissent in the US, patriot act and all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/natio...k-why.html

Anti-muslim sentiment was driven through the wall to create a scapegoat and distract from problems at home.

https://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/06/in...t.hearing/


https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/two-c...elaborate/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Incorrect
Bill Maher's show was cancelled over his denouncing US foreign policy. Countless journalists were fired from NYT and similar newspapers for opposition. Look up Chris Hedges.


https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-x...story.html
People were arrested for anti-war apparel.
https://www.thesunchronicle.com/editoria...00445.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/07/us/na...tives.html


I CAN KEEP going at this all day, pointing out how media dissent was silenced in the lead-up to war. That doesn't happen on its own, that takes government planning (all of which is well documented). Again, the US instigated the war in Iraq for economic reasons and for political reasons at home and abroad, to maintain its right-wing hegemony.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Next thing you know, and I'll have centrists telling me Abu Ghraib didn't exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib...oner_abuse

[mackoti]

So Obama is a realy right wing supremacist as he started more wars in midle east then Trump which for example started none and even retreat some units from there.

And dont gave me the he killed some general, the point is  I think he is the only american president i know since Reagan which didnt started a war in midle east so using your logic he isnt a right wing at all.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

So Obama is a realy right wing supremacist as he started more wars in midle east then Trump which for example started none and even retreat some units from there.

And dont gave me the he killed some general, the point is  I think he is the only american president i know since Reagan which didnt started a war in midle east so using your logic he isnt a right wing at all.

Reagan did contra in Nicaragua and plenty plenty of other foreign intervention. He increased the military budget by enormous amounts. Also you’re literally using a logical fallacy, I said if A then B, that doesn’t mean if not A then not B. Before uttering the words logic, try to learn some. And Obama is a right-winger. Read his new memoir, it reeks of the usual right wing fallacies. Obama deserves The Hague, just as Bush before him, and Clinton before him, and bush 1 before him. Obama led Syria, Lybia to ruin, and increased troop deployment in Iraq. He bombed Doctors Without Borders, and committed enough war crimes to earn him a hearing in a war crimes court.

Trump attempted a coup in Venezuela, massively increased support to saudis in Yemen, and led a relentless drone warfare campaign over Syria and Afghanistan. 

Every US administration since Truman has started unnecessary conflicts or supported genocidal tyrants worldwide.