So Your Eyeing a Third Party Candidate This Time Around

[Perknose]

I've heard it said that Liberals are so open-minded and amenable to different points of view that they become easily morally paralyzed. It's sad to see so much of that in this thread and nice to see that some Liberals here don't drown when faced with terrible alternatives. Its sad that the fear of doing something evil, the contemplation of terrible ramifications and unintended results, can lead to moral paralysis. No serious mind, facing the slaughter of children by terrorists believes that actions taken to stop them can lead to other terrible things. No serious mind believes that there is any action is right. But surely one must pick up the cross and suffer the dirt one gets on ones hands. I do not accept a world where children are butchered because I can't have everything I want. On the contrary, one must be willing to give up everything one has it seems to me.

A* for your moral sentiment, my friend.

But a C on the basis of what any one country, even one as militarily mighty as the U.S.A., can or should do in barging in to another culture's internecine conflict. The VC were killing educated Catholics in Vietnam, assassinating wholesale a whole class of leaders associated with the South Vietnamese regime. And Saddam was brutalizing other tribes, the Kurds, and all the Shia in Iraq. In retrospect, good sir, was our armed intervention in either country a net positive or a net negative?

 

[MajinCry]

A* for your moral sentiment, my friend.

But a C on the basis of what any one country, even one as militarily mighty as the U.S.A., can or should do in barging in to another culture's internecine conflict. The VC were killing educated Catholics in Vietnam, assassinating wholesale a whole class of leaders associated with the South Vietnamese regime. And Saddam was brutalizing other tribes, the Kurds, and all the Shia in Iraq. In retrospect, good sir, was our armed intervention in either country a net positive or a net negative?

Consider that the USA slaughtered and raped the Vietnamese with impunity, irregardless if they were citizens or Viet Cong, and that Saddam was the US' best friend, that the US were more than happy to facilitate (like with Gaddafi and Pinochet), only after having run his course did the US decide to take a..."Moral" stance.

At best, the US was cleaning up it's own steaming pile of genocide and rape, in regards to Libya and Iraq. In Vietnam, you guys only pulled out because it came to light that your soldiers were doing horrific and evil shit, which the western public weren't too happy about.

Hell, it was thanks to the US that Saddam focused on the Kurds. From 'ere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

...while these [Kurdish] rebels were not considered capable of overthrowing the Iranian government militarily, they were undermining Iranian moderates, prompting Precht to broach the possibility of meeting with Iraqi officials to persuade them that Iraq's support for the Kurds was not in its best interest.

 

[Moonbeam]

A* for your moral sentiment, my friend.

But a C on the basis of what any one country, even one as militarily mighty as the U.S.A., can or should do in barging in to another culture's internecine conflict. The VC were killing educated Catholics in Vietnam, assassinating wholesale a whole class of leaders associated with the South Vietnamese regime. And Saddam was brutalizing other tribes, the Kurds, and all the Shia in Iraq. In retrospect, good sir, was our armed intervention in either country a net positive or a net negative?

I see a typo that I will correct here and in the original:
"I've heard it said that Liberals are so open-minded and amenable to different points of view that they become easily morally paralyzed. It's sad to see so much of that in this thread and nice to see that some Liberals here don't drown when faced with terrible alternatives. Its sad that the fear of doing something evil, the contemplation of terrible ramifications and unintended results, can lead to moral paralysis. No serious mind, facing the slaughter of children by terrorists believes that actions taken to stop them can (can should have been can'tlead to other terrible things. No serious mind believes that there is any action is right. But surely one must pick up the cross and suffer the dirt one gets on ones hands. I do not accept a world where children are butchered because I can't have everything I want. On the contrary, one must be willing to give up everything one has it seems to me."

I hope it doesn't affect the moral sentiment part. As to your second point, because I believe is some action does not mean I'm always all in on how our government does things.

 

[MongGrel]

So more bombing, murder and mayhem courtesy of the United States. Yea this will turn out peachy keen...

We may not be the most evil nation to ever exist but we are doing our utmost to get into the running....

Live with it.

They declared war on the US, it is their problem.

Throwing flowers at someone when they are dedicated to trying to kill you never works.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

A* for your moral sentiment, my friend.

But a C on the basis of what any one country, even one as militarily mighty as the U.S.A., can or should do in barging in to another culture's internecine conflict. The VC were killing educated Catholics in Vietnam, assassinating wholesale a whole class of leaders associated with the South Vietnamese regime. And Saddam was brutalizing other tribes, the Kurds, and all the Shia in Iraq. In retrospect, good sir, was our armed intervention in either country a net positive or a net negative?

In the 50s we supported the Catholic theocratic minority rule which persecuted the Buddhist majority, because HEY Christians are better commie-killers and we're a Christian nation so HALLELUJAH! On an individual level it's unfortunate that Catholics were being killed, on a greater level it was a necessity to overthrow a century of oppression under violent Catholic French rule. The only reason you had a Viet Cong to begin with is because their people were fed up with being servants to white Christian outsiders. Ho Chi Minh, from any objective point of view, was the good guy no matter how many he killed (and afaik he really didn't kill that many to begin with, about as ethical as a commie dictator could get).

 

[ivwshane]

I really do love Jon Oliver, but I think Samantha Bee has been amazing and pretty much the very tippy top best of political satire. She was great on the Daily show, she is even greater with her own show. Stewarts semi-retirement has made me sad, but, Samantha has made me happy again, even if it is but once per week.

I think Samantha is the natural heir to the daily show in terms of the content, style, and whit. But John Oliver is the natural progression of the daily show, more in depth on the issues and highlighting lesser known issues.

 

[bshole]

Live with it.

They declared war on the US, it is their problem.

Throwing flowers at someone when they are dedicated to trying to kill you never works.

I will quote Alex Salmond, Scotland's former first minister with whom I agree:

"There is nobody in Syria who is not being bombed by somebody. That's why there are six-and-a-half million people displaced.

What should our reaction be to this carnage in this country? We need to be the voice of clarity, of sanity and of humanity.

We have to have the clarity to put forward the vision that adding a few more ageing Tornado sorties will have no military consequences whatsoever but it will add to human suffering.

We have to have the clarity to say we have a Prime Minister who is still smarting from being turned over in military action two years ago when he wanted to target Assad and is itching to reverse a Commons vote on military action.

He said to cheers from the conference floor:

There should be no more futile military interventions by the UK.

No more Afghanistans with no exit strategies, no more Libyas where we spent 13 times as much bombing as we did reconstructing that country and no more illegal wars such as the one in Iraq.

Above all, the path we should tread is that of humanity. Let us argue for a policy which focuses on the needs of the Syrian people, which takes on the tough role of being a major sponsor for peace and diplomacy, not just another protagonist in war and carnage.

Spot fucking on. Of all the major American politicians I know of, only Bernie Sanders comes close to this view.

 

[Perknose]

Spot fucking on. Of all the major American politicians I know of, only Bernie Sanders comes close to this view.

<Frivolous answer to a serious situation alert>

Well, to be fair, Gary Johnson doesn't even know where or what Aleppo is, so he probably wouldn't be bombing it.

 

[zinfamous]

<Frivolous answer to a serious situation alert>

Well, to be fair, Gary Johnson doesn't even know where or what Aleppo is, so he probably wouldn't be bombing it.

lol @ the mushroom. Is that because there is no spliff emoji?

 

[Perknose]

lol @ the mushroom. Is that because there is no spliff emoji?

I remain frustrated with our current emoji selection, but, hey, in this case, I didn't want to come across as a spore loser. 😀

 

[zinfamous]

I remain frustrated with our current emoji selection, but, hey, in this case, I didn't want to come across as a spore loser. 😀

I'm dying here...

But I must say, it's been 4 days, and I just can't hold out any longer: "YOU'RE" 😡

 

[blankslate]

So You're comfortable with the Establishment "choice" being rammed down your throat this time around.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-qvYSUS7-Y

___________________

 

[MongGrel]

+1 for effort.

 

[Perknose]

+1 for effort.

😀

 

[Chaotic42]

I'm dying here...

But I must say, it's been 4 days, and I just can't hold out any longer: "YOU'RE" 😡

I like this post, but I also like my skin not being sliced open...

 

[MongGrel]

Seems a good spot for this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-cris-iraq-mosul-idUSKCN12N0CA?il=0

 

[bshole]

Live with it.

They declared war on the US, it is their problem.

Throwing flowers at someone when they are dedicated to trying to kill you never works.

One additional bit of info. The United States actively bombed the oil infrastructure that was controlled by ISIS. This represents America at war with EVERYBODY in that region. Don't pretend that America is not one of the reasons that people are fleeing Syria, WE ARE. We are doing our damnedest to ensure that the place is unlivable. Bombing infrastructure into nonexistence is unwarranted and immoral. We are NOT in a fight for survival. We should be working to decrease suffering rather than the opposite. Who going to pay for rebuilding what America has destroyed?

https://news.vice.com/article/bombi...-isnt-the-slam-dunk-you-might-expect-it-to-be

Ramadan is no fan of IS. He's an active member of the underground opposition network Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, and uses a pseudonym to protect his identity. He's also quite supportive of the international bombing campaign against the radical militants. "Anything to upset Daesh," he said, using an Arabic acronym to refer to the group, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL.

But he's also concerned that attacks against oil sites controlled by IS will further decimate a local economy that's already a shambles.

"Civilians will not be able to buy fuel this winter," he said. "It's already very, very cold."

Though the bombing campaign is designed to cut off IS oil revenues, it could have a devastating effect on the civilian population.

"I believe the assumption that all aspects of the oil industry are affiliated with IS is mistaken," said Aymenn Tamimi, a Syrian researcher and fellow at the Middle East Forum who tracks life inside IS territory. "The impact may not be so much crippling IS financially as causing a humanitarian crisis with the onset of the winter."

 

[schneiderguy]

Before you pull that lever, have you taken a close enough look? John Oliver did.

Thanks for the link Perknose, I too get all of my political opinions from British comedians.

 

[Perknose]

Thanks for the link Perknose, I too get all of my political opinions from British comedians.

You're welcome! I honestly didn't think you were that smart. 😀

 

[zinfamous]

I like this post, but I also like my skin not being sliced open...

It's really an empty threat at this point.

Had I followed through on even 5% of those, I'm sure the state would have removed my internet access weeks ago.

 

[werepossum]

Funnier than other John Oliver videos I've seen (not saying much), but it still neglects to address that people are voting for unelectable candidates not because they particularly love them, but because they at least promote values not found in either of the major party candidates. #FeelTheJohnson

This.

Textual Tees has a great tee shirt:
Is your refrigerator running?
If so I would vote for it.

That said, I really like and admire Johnson, and given that every Presidential election of my adult life has been marked by the left insisting that not only the Republican candidate but every non-Democrat candidate is insane and incompetent, Oliver's videos aren't really of much use to me.

 

[DrDoug]

This.

Textual Tees has a great tee shirt:
Is your refrigerator running?
If so I would vote for it.

That said, I really like and admire Johnson, and given that every Presidential election of my adult life has been marked by the left insisting that not only the Republican candidate but every non-Democrat candidate is insane and incompetent, Oliver's videos aren't really of much use to me.

It's not surprising that you admire a guy who doesn't know much about anything. Birds, feather and all that... 😉

 

[werepossum]

Despite your confidence in your grasp of modern American history, you are wrong. Dwight David Eisenhower sent the first troops err, advisers.



Since I'm not sure just how shaky your grasp of our history is, I'll include the fact that Kennedy ran for President in 1960 and, of course, wasn't inaugurated until 1961.

Ike sent the first military advisers, but JFK sent the first combat troops, and Johnson first sent them into offensive operations.

 

[werepossum]

It's not surprising that you admire a guy who doesn't know much about anything. Birds, feather and all that... 😉

lol I'll forego pointing out that he was an excellent governor and simply point out that the same logic would make you a corrupt serial liar.

 

[werepossum]

How dare people who are being murdered by their own government fight back! The nerve of some people!

Before we armed and trained them, the "rebels" were in exactly the same position as dissenters in Saddam-Iraq, present-day Turkey, pre-civil war Syria or Libya, or present-day Iran. If they rise up, then yes, their government will murder them. Once we armed and trained them, the "rebels" were able to push the Syrian government into a full-fledged civil war. That's when government murder ceases to be a retail affair and transitions to wholesale murder and misery, and that's on us. If it's a moral imperative to give these people the right to self-determination, then morally the Bush method is much superior as it removes the old repressive regime at a much lighter price to the people we are supposedly concerned with empowering.

Personally though, I prefer the Obama-Clinton model. Self-determination in Middle Eastern or indeed, many other Islamic nations inevitably results in people voting in theocratic overlords who immediately remove the people's right to self-determination. Knowing that, I see no reason to spend the lives of our best people to give them something they then throw away. If they wish to wrest control away from one dictator only to hand it to another, maybe helping them is still the moral thing to do, but it's not worth American lives. However, not giving them the power to make their neighbors' lives a living hell also has much to recommend it morally.

I've heard it said that Liberals are so open-minded and amenable to different points of view that they become easily morally paralyzed. It's sad to see so much of that in this thread and nice to see that some Liberals here don't drown when faced with terrible alternatives. Its sad that the fear of doing something evil, the contemplation of terrible ramifications and unintended results, can lead to moral paralysis. No serious mind, facing the slaughter of children by terrorists believes that actions taken to stop them can't lead to other terrible things. No serious mind believes that there is any action is right. But surely one must pick up the cross and suffer the dirt one gets on ones hands. I do not accept a world where children are butchered because I can't have everything I want. On the contrary, one must be willing to give up everything one has it seems to me.

The bolded has to be the unintentionally funniest thing ever typed on the Internet.

It's a psychic agency (or combination of several derivatives depending on your view) that I hold important in American society, but does that make it a universal societal ideal?

Even so, we cannot satisfy all of our psychic needs so we must compromise. Personally I'm very apprehensive about such a statement. There is not one right way to be human, and the character of a person might work drastically differently in different societies.

I'm not saying we should not draw hard ethical lines to protect human rights globally. I'm merely saying we ought not be comfortable that we've done it right or that we have a solution to their violation.

You have a point, but outside of Communist and Islamicist dogma, surely self determination is as close to a universal societal ideal as one can get.