This proves neatly predictive... That's one hell of an interpretation, considering the blockade, arms sales, refueling support, and drone coverage all began completely out of nowhere with Obama's administration, was based in lies, and was ENTIRELY voluntary and willfully entered. I think you probably stumbled into one. Not only do Trump supporters not want to talk about this, but neither do Obama (and HRC - it's absolutely an extension of her FP) supporters thus the BS and media virtual blackouts.
The interesting thing from a historical perspective is that Iran is playing the role of Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is playing the role of Egypt.
There's a lot of "enemy of my enemy" thinking going on, and that shit NEVER backfires, ahtellyawhat. Edit: And if it's not 100% clear, I'm backing any and all resolutions to get us the hell out of Yemen. Additionally, I'm sick and ********ing tired of any use of the word "ally" to describe either Saudi Arabia or Israel.
During the Yemen civil war 1962-68 Egyptian troops intervened to prop up the republican regime there against royalist forces. The Saudis supported the royalists in a limited way. The Egyptians were bogged down there but had to pull out after their losses in the 6 day war.
If at all, yes, very limited. In fact, it's reported that they told the Houthis that they were on their own and they predicted that the Saudis would lose their shit and go ********ing crazy if they tried to overthrow Salah. Definitely undercuts the current bipartisan narrative.
I hear you. I think this is a pretty engaged and smart forum. I was certainly interested in learning about, and then bitching about, all the ********ed up shit we did when Obama was president. But you can't worry about skin cancer when you're hurtling into the sun. We're fighting an existential battle against the forces of darkness over here right now.
It's unfortunate that there's an ironclad bipartisan consensus in favor of one of the stupidest, most irresponsible ideas ever to receive traction; namely, the fundamental strategic presumptions of American interventionist foreign policy.
There will always be an excuse. I also find it neat how I can cut out your last two sentences and put them in a post by <insert alt-rightist here> and not blink.
I tell you what, I give dapip credit for one thing: he has changed utterly how a bunch of people here deal with and approach non-conforming criticism. It's masterful, in its own way. It doesn't say a lot for those employing the pre-filter he popularized, but it's definitely an accomplishment of sorts.
Both sides do it in the sense that they obey their corporate masters. Because elections cost money, and the people who have that money are giving it to you quid pro quo. When it comes to foreign policy, most of our politicians have no clue, and they think that "something should be done about it", and the people who usually step in to explain it are lobbyists for defense contractors and oil companies. Wars have been fought for tribal/religious reasons in the middle east for literally thousands of years, but that sweet, sweet oil money keeps calling the US back, so the US intervenes in shit they shouldn't even touch. Because there's money to be made, and if there's money to be made, the American government can be bought into fighting for it from all sides.
This makes me laugh. You played the reductionist game out of reflex, and you're disappointed in me. GFY
Culture wars trumps economic anxiety. About 7m people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 then voted for Donald Trump in 2016 https://t.co/F5mixfLMVQ— The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 4, 2017
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/23/dems-o23.html DNC Chairman Tom Perez, installed by the Clinton wing of the party establishment in a narrow victory over Representative Keith Ellison, a Sanders supporter, nominated a slate of candidates for top party committees that excluded several longtime activists who backed Sanders against Clinton in the campaign for the 2016 presidential nomination. Among those removed from the executive committee were James Zogby, the highest-ranking Arab-American on the DNC; New Hampshire state party chairman Ray Buckley; longtime DNC Secretary Alice Germond, and Barbra Casbar Siperstein, the first transgendered member of the DNC. All either supported Sanders against Clinton, or Ellison against Perez, or both. Buckley told NBC News, “I understand the chair can do as he pleases, but still, it’s all just very disappointing.” Zogby tweeted, “this doesn’t bring the party together. It deepens the divide at a time we need all hands on deck for ‘18 & ‘20.” A spokesman used identity politics to justify the changes in composition, claiming that the Perez slate of committee members and at-large nominees “reflects the unprecedented diversity of our party’s coalition” by increasing the number of Native American, gay and Puerto Rican members, as well as trade union officials. Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and a Sanders supporter, criticized the diversity claims, telling Huffington Post, “It’s not only misdirection, but it’s also divisive.” She added, “It continues to paint the Bernie people as not caring about our native and Latino and black brothers and sisters, which is complete nonsense.”
It's not an excuse. Trumpism really is a qualitatively unprecedented threat to the Republic. I'm having this discussion a lot with Berniecrats and "progressives" these days.
Dems won a lot last night, but it won't mean shit if the people don't turn out next November. The GOP is surprised by the results, but they don't mean a lot on the grand scale. It's not like this was some true litmus test. Also, I'm curious how much of these results were Republican voters staying home this time around. Either way, Dems still need a good showing in 2018 or this will all just be a blip on the radar.
While foreign disastrous adventurism isn't unprecedented, this sort of willing participation in the starvation and ruination of a country at the behest of another is. Edit: I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if there is a misplaced modifier in the first sentence or not.
That would be a mistake. Just like the tea party, the Bernicrats will not go away (that is both good and bad). They will win some primaries, hopefully in States and districts where the Democratic vote is so overwhelming that they will win the general elections. But they will also win in some places where they will go on to bomb in the General election and centrists dems will complain about throwing away and opportunity. But Centrists Democrats will also lose some elections, and the left will complain that we lost because it is more of the same. The biggest problem would be if the far left continues to lose primary elections or if they feel like the Democrat centrist keep rigging primary elections and they become disappointed with the system and just stop voting/caring. Obviously the other danger is that they do succeeds in taking over and become the left wing version of the lunatic fringe the republicans are now dealing with, that could happen, we will see.
There is no such thing as a left-wing version of the Tea Party. The most notable left-wing person in this country is Bernie Sanders, and he's a socialist democrat. Lunatic fringe of the left would be practically communist, and there's no way on earth that would happen in America. America is too far to the right for that to ever happen.