Behind a mind-set that invites the burden of policing a rules-based global order is a conventional assumption: War, though tragic, is a boon for economic vitality and patriotic vigor. This assumption is at best outmoded. The economy is no longer fueled by wartime industries in the same way. When wars are fought by a smaller corps of volunteers and financed by borrowing from financial institutions and foreign governments more than taxes and war bonds, a public spirit of common cause hasnât materialized. In fact, Americaâs most recent military misadventures contributed to the steady accumulation of more than $30 trillion in debt â now being weaponized by partisans in Congress for political gain.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, Elliott Abrams, who led Middle East policy in the Bush administration and Iran and Venezuela policy in the Trump administration, insisted that the United States should seize the ânew Cold Warâ opportunity to foster bipartisan consensus.
Well, I haven't seen the Labor Party spouting Russian talking points, not saying that they haven't. I mean some of the old timer's still call each other comrade. But yeah I'd say they still are overall left-leaning with the caveat that if something helps a heavily unionised business they tend to support it (I'm looking at you, coal companies).
But if you don't like left leaning then maybe "progressive?" "non-extreme right wing?" "woke"? I dunno, but I think even you get the idea of who I was trying to characterise in a general sense realising that generalisations are just that and are imperfect.
I don't care about your use of the term (being leveled at westslope, who may or may not identify), but the facile characterization of repeating/being susceptible to Russian talking points. I guess the flip side would be the vast majority of boring centrists repeating NATO/US talking points.
If you start off with a hilarious characterization of "left-leaning" (does that incl. Aussie Labour?) (For some weird reason they are the Labor Party) and just dismiss arguments (as fuzzy logic) or distort them beyond recognition, then there's really no point in repeating or continuing them. Carry on as usual.
Well, I haven't seen the Labor Party spouting Russian talking points, not saying that they haven't. I mean some of the old timer's still call each other comrade. But yeah I'd say they still are overall left-leaning with the caveat that if something helps a heavily unionised business they tend to support it (I'm looking at you, coal companies).
But if you don't like left leaning then maybe "progressive?" "non-extreme right wing?" "woke"? I dunno, but I think even you get the idea of who I was trying to characterise in a general sense realising that generalisations are just that and are imperfect.
*strawman? Unwilling to clarify? Wants to keep safe in the land of inuendo?
I admit that it is sometimes hard to figure out the salient points from a rambling RP discussion thread.
If you start off with a hilarious characterization of "left-leaning" (does that incl. Aussie Labour?) and just dismiss arguments (as fuzzy logic) or distort them beyond recognition, then there's really no point in repeating or continuing them. Carry on as usual.
Can't see the tweet but whatever. You are simultaneously arguing that the anexation is bad but the US should ignore it when Russia does it but shouldn't ignore it when Israel does. That's some fuzzy logic. And by the way we shouldn't ignore the jews getting the boot out of Palestine because it happened long ago but should be against the establishment of Israel becaus it happend in your lifetime. That last bit is truly one of the complicated ethical questions world wide. I mean was it ok for the Navajo to do in the Anasazi but bad for the Europeans to do in the Navajo? I don't have an easy answer to that one. Then again, I'm reasonably comfortable with grey areas.
Yeah, perfectly happy was a minor overstatement because lip service condemnation with perhaps a few ineffective sanctions. The main take away is that the US was not doing anything to promote a war in Ukraine and was willing to let the agression slide. Now, you and others are trying to cast USA as aggressors in the region who somehow wanted the war that Russia started. To be fair, though, I don't think there was much the US could have done back then because western Europe wasn't behind any response.
The Golan article is a total red herring and I have no idea why you think it is relevant. But for the record, I think Israel totally screwed up with Lebanon by screwing Lebanon. Unfortunately the Lebanese government was probably too weak to take on Hamas (or whatever group was there) and left themselves vulnerable. In any case it wasn't really under government control.
