1,920 Forum Posts by "Ranger2"
Providing a link is not a substitute for an argument. It is not my job to read it. It is your job to quote it.
Iran's Ayatollah Khameini recently tweeted #BlackLivesMatter on his Twitter page, sending a strong condemnation of US police policies.
I wonder if he's going to also tweet #HomosexualLivesMatter, #KurdishLivesMatter, or #Bahai'iLivesMatter too?
I saw The Interview today, and while it was worth seeing, I was disappointed in its message, although frankly I wasn't expecting much.
The major message was that Kim Jong-Un was in power because his people were absolutely convinced he was a deity. The solution to the problem, according to the movie, is to show the people that Kim Jong-Un was a mortal human being. Only then would the people rise up and take him out and install a democracy.
The situation is infinitely more complicated than that.
Food for thought:
I was watching From Russia With Love, and noted how back in the day, the Turkish government was absolutely dying to show its loyalty to NATO, and perhaps, if it were lucky, even be considered a fellow European country. Kemalist ideology reigned in the government; the government was strictly secular, and Westernization policies were put in place to emphasize Turkey's European roots.
Doesn't seem like that anymore.
For about a decade or more, Turkey has increasingly pivoted away from the West diplomatically, and shirked its role in NATO. Turkey has not participated in combat operations in Afghanistan, and has not acted with its European allies against ISIS.
Turkish internal politics largely shape the Eastward shift. Ever since the early 2000s, the Kemalist President Erdogan recently claimed that Muslims discovered America before Columbus, American soldiers were attacked in Istanbul by nationalist protestors. While these attacks do not represent the Erdogan government, they nevertheless reflect the anti-Western sentiment growing in the country.
Granted, increasing Turkish animosity towards the West is partially caused by the West rejecting Turkey. Western nations criticized the Turkish government's response to the Gezi protests. But I think the Europeans are the most to blame. Turkey's ascension to the EU is also on hold, as it has been for a long time. Angela Merkel has long opposed an EU-member Turkey, preferring a "privileged partnership." In 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy said that not just anyone can join the EU, and Turkey just isn't west enough. With its bids to join the EU spurned, Turkey feels it cannot connect with the West, and must look elsewhere.
I think the two biggest issues concerning European rejection of Turkey's ascension are a) the fact that Turkey will not call what happened to the Armenians a genocide, and b) a lot of Europeans are against the idea of a 95% Muslim nation joining the Christian-majority European Union. I think had Europeans swallowed their pride/fears and made Turkey an EU member, we would not be seeing this Eastward shift.
But would Turkey quit NATO, or be kicked out?
In the short run, no. Especially with ISIS on its border, Turkey needs a safety net, and is likely willing to put aside its hurt feelings and rely on the West for protection. Still, its improved relations with Iran and the Kurds may suggest the beginning of a shift towards less reliance on NATO for protection. Turkey's government has also been calling for the ouster of al-Assad (why, I will never understand) and only NATO has the power (though not the will) to do so.
But in the long run, now that Turkish sentiment is pivoting eastward, and with Turkey's seeming lesser role in NATO, and European spurning of Turkey, could we see Turkey leaving NATO in say, 10-15 years? Who knows. I think it's a possibility.
At 12/27/14 03:35 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: if you have that much disdain for this country, than at the least we can agree the U.S. and by extension the west is the lesser of two evils.
I don't have disdain for the United States. I love my country. But I have a different perception of it than you do. You could say that America is the lesser of two evils, but evil doesn't factor into my thought process. Even if ISIS were tolerant and democratic, I would still oppose it as long as it remains a threat to US security and interests.
At 12/26/14 04:08 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: The reason we always go to war should be based on morality.
Why? What does morality serve? I have yet to see a single war prosecuted with the primary goal being to spread morality. It's important to understand the difference between rhetoric and casus belli. Here's some examples.
Civil War:
Rhetoric: To end slavery and uphold morality
Casus belli: The splintering of the country jeopardized the US government's sovereignty and rendered the continent vulnerable to European colonialism
WWII:
Rhetoric: To defeat Nazism, free Europe and Asia, and stop the Holocaust
Casus belli: Japan, you attacked Pearl Harbor and are stealing the Philippines from us. And if we don't help Britain against Hitler, we're next.
War in Afghanistan & Iraq:
Rhetoric: To spread freedom and democracy
Casus belli: Nobody kills 3000 of our citizens and gets away with it, & Saddam, we fear you plan to use WMDs against us.
My point is, why should we go to war for morality when never has anyone gone to war for morality? War is violence and killing, no matter how you frame it. There is no such thing as a moral war. You go to war for your interests, nothing else.
At 12/23/14 10:49 AM, HooglyBoogly wrote: The way I look at it is like this... I think it is very plausible that most of the remaining population probably doesn't want to be there, either.
Again, keeping the place a shithole does not hurt the regime...It hurts your average citizen, and that's why I typically disagree with exile rhetoric.
I'm not arguing against ending the embargo--I fully support it. I'm just saying that a) we should not expect Cuba's economic or political situations to improve, and b) it's not a bad thing for the US if it doesn't.
At 12/25/14 10:33 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:
st human nature and goes far beyond that of just war.
But in terms of morality, Al-Qaeda may have been looking out for its own (like minded Sunnis), but to put them again on equal playing field with any western nation is absurd.
We can argue who's more moral 'til the cows come home. My point is, it doesn't matter who is more moral.
There's no purpose in trying to determine what makes a certain side in war more moral than the others. If you base your support on a moral code, you will find yourself to be a hypocrite or a cynic. The US and al-Qaeda have both done things that go against most people's moral codes, so can you be morally consistent in supporting one side? But there is nothing to be gained in being a cynic--victory for either side will have enormous ramifications.
Instead, support whoever you believe will further your interests. As an American citizen, I know that an American victory over terrorism is in my best interest. If G-d forbid, al-Qaeda were to win, that would not advance my interests. So I wholeheartedly support the US in the War on Terror.
The US is not in Afghanistan just to "spread freedom." We are in Afghanistan because 3,000 people died on 9/11, and no sovereign government would shirk its responsibility to protect its own people. NATO/ISAF is in Afghanistan to protect its own kind, and al-Qaeda is fighting on behalf of its own kind.
War is ultimately about serving a group's interests, not a crusade against evil.
Having heard both strong and pathetically weak arguments on the BBS, I think it would be good to have a forum anyone can contribute to discussing how to properly argue on the BBS.
1: spelng & grammr countt. Nothing says "I don't care about my argument" than using poor grammar. An occasional hiccup here and there is fine--this isn't English class--but a messy paragraph can obscure even the best argument. You need an effective delivery in order for people to take you seriously.
2: Less is more. This is a problem I struggle with. Use professional words, but don't be verbose. Get right to the point. Don't be afraid to completely rewrite a paragraph of your argument if it's unclear. Read before you post.
3: Citations are not a substitute for an argument. I can't tell you how many times on the BBS I have heard, "well you're wrong, watch this video and see!" Think of it this way: arguing on the BBS is like writing an essay. You don't just provide a bibliography and say "here, read these and they'll explain everything." It is your job to watch the video and quote from it to back up your arguments. While you cannot demand someone watch an hour-long video, you can say "as shown at 45:01 in this video, I concur that the Iraq War started in 2003."
And on that note, avoid blanket copy-pastes from articles. Use your own words, unless you are directly quoting a person's speech.
4: Avoid code-words or excessive pronouns. For example, if I hear, "JFK was killed because they didn't want us to find the truth." Who's "they"? Who's "us"? Avoid using vague groups like "the illuminati" or "the government." The US government (or any government) is far from a monolithic group. You sound like a conspiracy theorist, or someone who cannot comprehend the depth of your subject. And for the love of G-d, do not call someone a Nazi unless they are actually heiling Hitler and wearing the swastika. Same with the word "fascist." Someone who disagrees with you is not by definition a fascist. Same with neoconservative. Neoconservative is one of the most used and least understood adjectives used. I disagree with neoconservatism, but I at least know what it means.
5: Acknowledge your limits. Plenty of times my mind has changed because of an exceptional argument. If you believe in your ideals, that's great, but have the power to know when you are wrong. Is there a better argument to make, or are you just plain wrong? Also know that it's unlikely you are going to change the person against whom you are arguing's mind. Make your case, and the best case scenario is that you made someone reading the post think, "hmm, that's interesting."
6: Know when you're beaten. If you are proven to be factually wrong, don't try to hide it and say, "what I really meant was ____." Acknowledge it, and learn from it. You will not have lost any competition. The goal of the politics section of the BBS is to spur debate and learn. Call out others on their bullshit, but be prepared to be called out yourself.
7: Check your sources. I've had people argue using Wikipedia pages as sources. Wikipedia is great for common knowledge information, like "Tokyo is the capital of Japan, but not for drawn out arguments. I've heard people make arguments by citing a middle-school assignment online. Others have "proven" that 9/11 was an inside job by quoting 911wasaninsidejob.com. If you wouldn't use a source in a graded essay, don't use it here.
Who else has any other suggestions to add? Add them here and hopefully we can all improve our skills.
At 12/22/14 01:23 PM, HooglyBoogly wrote: The most outspoken opponents of improving relations with Cuba are exiles themselves. Rightfully so, I might add. With that said, I do think that many of the old-timers are naive to the Liberalization of the current Cuban government.
Not that the liberalization of the current Cuban government makes much of a difference. Vietnamese-Americans are some of the most outspoken opponents of improved relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and that alliance has helped American interests tremendously.
At 12/22/14 08:43 AM, MrPercie wrote: And palestinians are in their homeland, always have been, why the hell does israel get to call the shots just because they turn up with thousands of people who believe that this is their homeland, having not lived their for thousands of fucking years.
Jews lived in the land for centuries too. Zionists saw their vision as bolstering a pre-existing Jewish community in the land, not creating a new one from scratch. Asking why Israel deserves a state is like asking why Slovenes deserved their own state after the breakup of Yugoslavia.
And perhaps they should try working with their neighbours than making fucking enemies, then perhaps the idea of removing israel wouldn't be such a potent one if its history wasn't strewn with conflict.
Oh please, like Israel's neighbors ever had any intention of working with it. They invaded on the very day of Israel's declaration of independence.
At 12/20/14 09:59 PM, Korriken wrote: If you look at the wave of terror the KKK spread across the south, one would classify that as pure evil. Lynching innocents because of the color of their skin, placing burning crosses in their yards, among other things. No one ever calls these people mentally ill. It's because they're not.
Most people are not inherently driven by morals. People are driven by interests, usually security. And I'd like to use the KKK as an example. The KKK formed after the Civil War. Why did it not exist beforehand?
Before the Civil War, whites indisputably controlled the South. After the Civil War, the economy was in shambles, cities were destroyed, and whites no longer had a monopoly on power, and they did not trust either the Northern occupying forces nor the new black voters to protect their interests.
The people who joined the Klan did so because they felt threatened. Regardless of how real the threat was, they felt if they did not reestablish white dominance, they would be subdued by free blacks and the US government. Yes, there were (and are) those who join because the thought of a black person sickens them, but they are a minority. Extremist groups are disgusting, but it's ignorant to assume they aren't rational actors. Rational does not mean good, and irrational does not mean evil.
What you call evil in many cases is just desperation and fear. People will go to great lengths if they feel threatened. Just look at the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS in the Middle East. Is it because the Muslim world has a higher population of evil people? No. The Muslim world has a higher population of hungry, unemployed young people, and to them, terrorism is a job opportunity. (Even terrorists receive paychecks.)
What you call evil may just be an act of desperation, all in the instinct of self-preservation. Ultimately, it does not matter if the threat is real or not. If someone feels threatened, he will in most cases do whatever is necessary to survive.
(I am defining reform as democratization and economic liberalization)
We need to take these four truths into account when hammering out a foreign relation policy with Cuba
1: Cuban reform is not guaranteed with normalized relations
2: If reform happens, it will happen very slowly. Do not expect sudden changes like in Eastern Europe after 1991.
3: The United States must not appear to be pressuring the Cuban government to reform, otherwise Cubans may fear their government is being manipulated by the US
4: It is not necessarily bad for the US if reform doesn't happen
First, Cubans see communism different than the Eastern Europeans did. Eastern Europeans saw their communist governments and systems as foreign, loyal to Russia. Cuban communism is more home-grown. Castro was above all, a nationalist who saw communism as a means to an end rather than the end itself. He localized communism by giving it a Cuban tint. Because of this, many Cubans may not see communism as a problem, and if anything may see capitalism as a foreign system not to be trusted. We cannot discount that the Cubans, accustomed to isolation from the West, may not take kindly to Western ideas about free markets and democracy.
While there's a lot of talk about whether or not Cuba may become a democracy, I don't think it matters. The Cubans support Castro; they can have him. What matters is that the US is able to work with the Cuban government and expand trade relations. If the US is able to profit from increased trade, it doesn't matter how democratic or not the Cuban government is. Whether or not the Castros remain in power for 1 more year or 100 more years, as long as this relationship is profitable for the US, that's all that matters.
At 12/21/14 07:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So Israel's existence is non-negotiable. Palestine, well, not so much...
Neither are negotiable.
Feoric gives a good summary of the Kurdish situation here.
In essence, the Kurds are not a united society. A comparable example would be the ancient Greek city-states. Athens and Sparta were not united politically, but both considered themselves Greek and more often than not would band together against outsiders like Persia or Troy.
The Kurds are certainly banding together against ISIS, but it's unclear whether or not they will form a united Kurdistan. The different Kurdish tribes want ISIS out so that they can continue to lead their people as they have for centuries.
This is complicated by the fact that the Kurds have not entirely shut out other governments too. Erdogan has made concessions with Turkish Kurds, and Iraqi Kurds appear to not entirely be against the idea of working with the Iraqi government in Baghdad.
I use vague words like "appear to not entirely be against" because a) my knowledge is limited, and b) welcome to international relations!
At 12/18/14 07:42 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Russia is a very worrying situation, about all they can do is sanctions and pray. I just don't see any easy way out of this mess for anyone, and Putin knows it.
I imagine this is not what Obama intended with his "reset" with Russia. Nevertheless, we've crossed the point of no return. It's been a good 20-some years of cordial relations with Russia, but we're not going to see a rapprochement anytime soon. The West is going to continue to weaken Russia to prevent it from reemerging as the USSR, and Putin is going to hunker down and move his country further away from the West.
Looking back, we should have seen this coming, and it's difficult to see who's to blame. On one hand, you do have Russia feeling incredibly vulnerable with the expansion of NATO, its late 90s financial crisis, and the shock of no longer being a superpower, which Russians still have not gotten over. A lot of Putin's actions in Ukraine and Georgia to him are retaliation against Western encroachment in both countries. But there's still no guarantee that had the West "played nice" with Russia then it would be an ally of the US. Much like Germany after WWI, it was weak, but not so weak that it felt it needed to ally with other countries to become strong again. Perhaps had the West "played nice" with Russia, relations would be better but Russia is too big and too powerful to accept a role as just one of a team, as Germany was forced to accept after WWII.
In essence, Russia was weakened enough by the collapse of the USSR that it could no longer directly threaten the West, but it wasn't defeated so utterly that it had to abandon hopes of one day becoming a superpower again.
At 12/19/14 07:16 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: I just have to correct this. The "Canaanites" were not a distinct people from the Israelites as insinuated by the bible. Historically, Israelites were ethnically Canaanite...
Arguments like these are useless. Why not tell Britons to go back to Saxony and take their Germanic language with them? Why not tell Afrikaners, whose African history traces back over 400 years, to go back to the Netherlands? Why not tell Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders to all go back to Europe?
It doesn't matter who was there first at this point. Arguments trying to justify Israel's continued existence are as useless as arguments saying Israel should be eliminated. Legitimate or not, Israel is a fact and is here to stay. Its inhabitants consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern heritage. They feel they are in their homeland, and many communities have lived there for hundreds of years already.
It's not 1948, where the existence of the Israeli state was brand new and its elimination not implausible. It's 2014, we need to accept Israel's existence, and move on.
But let's get this back to airstrikes on ISIS.
At 12/18/14 12:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Russia is a powerhouse. All Russia needs to do is strengthen their ties with China and the fat, arrogant and ignorant American empire will perish.
There is a degree of truth to that. Small, but a degree nonetheless. Keep in mind that China may see Russian weakness as a sign to back away from it and continue to pivot towards the Third World. But why am I typing this? Leanlifter is a Muscovite troll anyway.
The tide has turned several times during this whole debacle. In the beginning with Euromaidan, the West seemed to be on top. Then Putin invaded Crimea and appeared to be the stronger leader as the West passed small sanctions. But then the West kicked Russia out of the G8, but Germany was unwilling to go through more sanctions, so it seemed to be a standstill. Now the ruble is tanking, and the West appears to be be winning this game. It may change in the future, but what a ride.
I don't care one bit about conditions in Cuba. They elected Castro, they can have him. But I think this is a step in the right direction. There is no longer a national interest in being hostile towards Cuba. It's no longer a Soviet puppet. The embargo has not served American interests since 1991, so why continue it? I hope we do the same with Iran and Syria to help us gain leverage against our real enemies: China, ISIS (and terrorist supporters), and Russia.
The ruble is plummeting. Earlier today, Russia's central bank announced an interest rate hike from 10% to about 17% in a desperate attempt to stop the continuing depreciation of the Russian ruble. Since the Crimean crisis, the ruble has lost about 57% of its value. It's unclear whether or not this is the final drop, or if there is more to come.
A lot of news coverage has paired the sanctions with criticism of Russian democracy. Criticism of Putin's treatment of Pussy Riot and homosexuality have led some supporters of the sanctions to consider this: as sanctions pile up against Putin, people will become increasingly dissatisfied with his rule, and push for a new, more democratic leader. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stated that sanctions are attempts at "regime change" in Russia.
But for good or bad, the sanctions will only strengthen Putin's rule. Now that begs the question: Is this good or bad? Personally, I don't see Putin leaving office as necessarily fixing the problem. But in real terms, he won't. Not with a 74% approval rating that is growing.
Both the West and Putin see themselves as the winners of the sanctions game, but for different reasons. Western leaders can point to the real decline in Russia's economy. But to Putin, the sanctions represent Western effort against his rule, and he has done a great job pointing at the big Western bogeyman as the cause of all of Russia's woes. Ultimately, it does not matter if Putin leaves or not. The sanctions will not make the people of Russia any friendlier towards the West, and if anything shrink back further from real democratic reform.
In essence, if you want real democratic reform, stop the sanctions. But if you want to check Russian aggression in Ukraine, keep them up, but at the expense of possible democratic reform. It's complicated, but on the path I see us on, we will see a weakened, but even more authoritarian Russia. Again, if democracy is your #1 goal in Russia, rethink the sanctions. If checking Russian aggression is your #1 goal, then let's keep on the path we're on. Just don't expect a Soviet-style collapse.
At 12/15/14 12:26 PM, Warforger wrote: Whether or not ISIS is faithfully Islamic is one thing, but it's a whole other to assume that the majority of Muslims agree with them, which is something people are going to act like after shit like this. That said is it possible he has connections to ISIS? They did say they have dormant terrorist cells right?
The guy pledged allegiance to ISIS, but it's fishy whether or not he was a planted agent or just some guy inspired by ISIS.
At 12/14/14 10:03 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: You are correct in that specific quote was mistranslated, but Iranian leaders have called for and continue to call for Israel's destruction. It's not an isolated incident. While a lot of politicians in the Arab world invoke Jew hatred to appeal to the voters, officially calling for the destruction of another nation state is unprecedented.
You are taking their statements at face value. Iran knows that if it attacks Israel it will be hit back twice as hard. And no, it's not unprecedented for a Muslim country to declare its intention to wipe Israel off the map. It's a political rallying cry more than anything else.
See that's where I disagree. Iran is funding our enemies. They're funding Hezbollah, a terrorist org, Hamas, a terrorist org, Houthis, a terrorist org... etc. They are backing destabilizing forces all over the region. The only difference is Iran is funding Shia terrorists rather than Sunnis.
Iran is funding Israel's enemies, not ours. Israel is a great ally, but that does not make their enemies ours. Hezbollah has never planned any attacks on the United States. Nor has Hamas. Nor has Houthis. Unlike al-Qaeda, their goals are territorial, not political. Nasrallah and his gang are scum, but they are not enough of a threat to the US to warrant attacks.
The Syrians have needed aid for years. Far too little has been done for them. But something is obviously better than nothing.
That ship has sailed. The FSA is becoming irrelevant, and even then they are in bed with the al-Nusra front and other al-Qaeda affiliates. Our best bet is to bolster the Kurds and accept the fact that Iraq will become a Shia-dominated state. That may shrink its borders but will strengthen its national unity.
* The Life and Death of Martin Luther King (1981)
Since MLK was not communist at all
* Essays in Contemporary History, 1946-1990 (1990)
It'll be interesting to see how the USSR was functioning around the time of its death.
* History of the Usa Since World War I (1976)
Cool perspectives
The battle against ISIS has shifted to bombing its capital, Raqqah. Coalition airstrikes have begun to focus more on the capital and less in areas where Kurdish, Syrian, and Iraqi forces are attacking.
I have only one word for this shift in war strategy.
Why?
There is nothing to be gained by attacking Raqqah. Focus instead on areas where ISIS does not have undisputed control. The only strikes on Raqqah should be surgical and cosmetic. The plan appears to be to destroy ISIS, even though there is no entity strong enough to fill the power vacuum that would ensue in ISIS's ouster.
A country with one of the longest average workdays in the world is not too entitled. A generation that is forging ahead in the face of recession is not too entitled. Nobody expects opportunities to land in their lap. Americans are fighters--it's ingrained in our culture that you need to work hard to win hard.
Baby boomers are too entitled, to be sure. Generation X is too entitled. But the Greatest Generation, the Lost Generation, and Millennials are not entitled.
Scenes like this make me wonder how much longer Turkey will be in NATO. With attacks on US soldiers happening in Istanbul, Erdogan shooting his mouth off, and the Turkish military continually losing power to the Islamists, I wonder when they will declare themselves a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
I think a large part of this is Europe dragging its feet when negotiating Turkey joining the EU. With 60% of Turks having a negative view of Europe, I think that time has passed. Perhaps if Turkey had joined the EU, its economy would have been better off and it would have had a larger invested interest in Europe. But that time is quickly passing--if it hasn't already--and scenes like this will become more common as Turkey moves eastward.
At 11/29/14 12:54 PM, AKMan2 wrote: What racial tension exists today?
It's increasingly portrayed as whites vs. everyone else. Everybody is quick to point the finger and say there is only one race that can be racist; all others are oppressed, which I think gets us nowhere.
Is racism exaggerated in the media?
No, it does exist but people look for it where it isn't.
Is there a bias or prejudice towards certain races in our society?
There are positive and negative biases for all races. Whites are positively biased as strong and powerful, but negatively biased as racist. Blacks are positively biased as cool and tolerant, but negatively biased as criminals. Asians are positively biased as hard workers, but negatively biased as too strict and bad drivers. Racism exists, but I absolutely reject the notion that some races are more racist than others.
Do you agree with federal intervention to stop racism (hate crimes, campaigns, Affirmative Action, etc)
Affirmative Action should be based off of wealth, not race. It creates false dichotomies (black =/= rich, white =/= poor.)
Is there any special treatment or favoring of one race in our legal system?
I can't say for sure, but every single race has its own privilege, whites included.
