• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogation...

JasperL said:
But we can't, at least not with anything like solid evidence. That's been Boo's point over and over and he's right.
Click to expand...

I've cited for Boo the multiple times that that program did, in fact, produce actionable intelligence that saved lives. Thus far his point has been that you can't disprove the counterfactual (that we couldn't have produced that intelligence via other means); which is to say, it raises an impossible burden of proof, to take all possible futures and demonstrate their falsity. So he's right only to the extent that you are willing to accept a standard that denies all possibility of knowledge.

Well then maybe the CIA should talk to them, so they can share the success stories with journalists and Congress.
Click to expand...

:shrug: unlikely. they're the "quiet" professionals, contra some of our SEALs. But the CIA would know who they are, and where to find them. :) They're the CIA, after all.

I'm not making a partisan argument - haven't mentioned parties a single time. But since you've brought it up, where are the civil liberties GOPers? Or is torture a new right for libertarians - what could go wrong making torture a tool of government. Hey, small and limited and free to torture if the ends are just!!
Click to expand...

It was Senate Democrat Bob Kerrey, formerly of the Intelligence Subcommittee, who stated that the report was partisan hackery rather than an attempt to produce something that would lead to better governance. Additionally, Democrat-appointed and Democrat-approved CIA leadership have pointed to the reports multiple falsities and it's unwillingness to gather all the relevant data. Perhaps you should take that up with them.

As for the GOPers :shrug: It's interesting - ole Rand Paul has been pretty quiet thus far on this.

The obvious answer is that lots can go wrong with the EIT program - specifically the normalization that George Freidman spoke of. The countering program is that Lots MORE can go wrong with a nation that takes those tools off the table. It's the strategic mirror to the overly restrictive ROE's that put our troops in danger downrange.

I've tried to find the evidence and other than bare assertions, haven't located it.
Click to expand...

So.. other than bipartisan testimony from those who would be in a position to know, we don't have any evidence? What evidence are you looking for?

It's more than that - the cases cited as proof all have huge holes in them and are at best thin evidence. So why the vigorous assertions that there is all this compelling evidence? It's not the cases we know about, so what alternative can you come up with except that there are cases we do NOT know about?
Click to expand...

To simply discredit the uniform, bipartisan testimony from those who would be in a position to know as they provide specifics as "at best thin evidence" I'll admit, I don't get. Are you looking for some kind of reversal of courtroom rules - prove their innocence beyond all shadow of a doubt?

Of course, human rights aren't restricted to Americans. If so they're not human rights, but rights of U.S. citizens, and we're a long way from "we hold these truths...all men" to "some men, if they are U.S. born or became citizens, have some rights unless we determine that stripping them produces a short term benefit...."
Click to expand...

Yup. For example, we're willing to strip the rights of our citizens when we Draft them. And we are willing to choose to protect the rights of our citizens over the rights of the citizens of other nations, especially when it is those foreign citizens who are placing our own at risk and setting up the conflict in the first place.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary - it seems as we pull back, we create vacuums, which other actors rush to fill.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a reason not to run around making vacuums. And that doesn't mean that we should constantly have imperial troops everywhere. We made a vacuum, then occupied the space ourselves. But we cannot do this for infinity, or rather our infinity war requires that we move about to engage other actors. When we do, because we made the vacuum in the first place, because we do not try to solve issues, because we're moving about in the area to engage other theaters, naturally we leave behind environments ideal for breeding terrorism.

But it's clear, we cannot keep up this style of intervention and solve the issue.
 
American said:
What could go wrong with the death penalty as a tool of government? Oh wait.....that's totally legal, and never used on a mass scale in the US.

:failpail:
Click to expand...

I'm just surprised that small government libertarians in the GOP are wanting the "State" to have essentially unchecked powers that touch on the most basic civil liberties. You're a 'conservative' and likely at heart an authoritarian, so I'm not surprised you'd support torture as a tool available to government against people-not-like-you, but I don't actually expect that from libertarian types.

FWIW, I'm also opposed to the death penalty for many reasons, but as it's practiced in the U.S., as flawed as it is, there are pretty important checks and balances in the system. With torture and the like, it's asserted to be (at least this was what Bush asserted) a power vested in one person - the POTUS/CIC or his delegates, and not limited by Congress or the Courts. Quite a fundamental difference, so your attempted analogy is also a FAIL.
 
JasperL said:
I'm just surprised that small government libertarians in the GOP are wanting the "State" to have essentially unchecked powers that touch on the most basic civil liberties. You're a 'conservative' and likely at heart an authoritarian, so I'm not surprised you'd support torture as a tool available to government against people-not-like-you, but I don't actually expect that from libertarian types.

FWIW, I'm also opposed to the death penalty for many reasons, but as it's practiced in the U.S., as flawed as it is, there are pretty important checks and balances in the system. With torture and the like, it's asserted to be (at least this was what Bush asserted) a power vested in one person - the POTUS/CIC or his delegates, and not limited by Congress or the Courts. Quite a fundamental difference, so your attempted analogy is also a FAIL.
Click to expand...

Those people "not like me" happen to be enemies, dude. Actually I'm somewhat libertarian, but mostly conservative. Nevertheless, everyone apparently acted upon the opinion that it was legal under all applicable rules. Given that, and their urge to spare the country another 9/11 attack, I can see how this interrogation method seemed viable. One could also argue that sending out troops in to bomb and kill people is also a war crime. So how far do you want to go with it? Three people got waterboarded in a war. Many more were actually killed. Keep a perspective.
 
JasperL said:
I'll do that right after someone explains how oversight of the CIA and making those findings public is treason. I guess we need to start executing whistle blowers while we're at it too. After all, it's not what was done, it is that it was REVEALED that is the crime!
Click to expand...

So, you respond by building a straw man? Figures.

The actions of Feinstein, et al. come close to treason in that they give aid and comfort to the the enemy, to wit, ISIS and Al Qaeda. Reread the law and see if you can grasp why this borders on treason?
 
JasperL said:
I'm just surprised that small government libertarians in the GOP are wanting the "State" to have essentially unchecked powers that touch on the most basic civil liberties.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that you are assigning views to people that they have not expressed, and in most cases have already said they do not hold.

You're a 'conservative' and likely at heart an authoritarian, so I'm not surprised you'd support torture as a tool available to government against people-not-like-you, but I don't actually expect that from libertarian types.

FWIW, I'm also opposed to the death penalty for many reasons, but as it's practiced in the U.S., as flawed as it is, there are pretty important checks and balances in the system. With torture and the like, it's asserted to be (at least this was what Bush asserted) a power vested in one person - the POTUS/CIC or his delegates, and not limited by Congress or the Courts. Quite a fundamental difference, so your attempted analogy is also a FAIL.
Click to expand...

I stated in my first post that I oppose the rendition techniques used by the CIA; but this in no way excuses the politically motivated actions of Feinstein and her pack of jackals. Her behavior is shameful and comes extremely close to outright treason. Clearly the democrats view Republicans as their enemy, and apparently willing to craft an alliance with Al Qaeda to attack the Republicans.

The entire party disgusts me.
 
American said:
Those people "not like me" happen to be enemies, dude. Actually I'm somewhat libertarian, but mostly conservative. Nevertheless, everyone apparently acted upon the opinion that it was legal under all applicable rules. Given that, and their urge to spare the country another 9/11 attack, I can see how this interrogation method seemed viable. One could also argue that sending out troops in to bomb and kill people is also a war crime. So how far do you want to go with it? Three people got waterboarded in a war. Many more were actually killed. Keep a perspective.
Click to expand...

Some were enemies, some were innocent bystanders caught up in the hysteria, which is of course why due process and human rights matter. And it's not just interrogation and torture or torture lite or "EIT" - the idea that we have prisoners in a lawless (literally) zone at GITMO is a problem, that we intend to try them in Kangaroo courts or alternatively hold them indefinitely, as was the idea that we could sweep anyone up and render them to places unknown, and more recently that we can drone citizens without trial, not to mention suspected unfriendlies. These are all pretty expansive powers without meaningful checks, and it's a bit frustrating that they're accepted with such ease so long as someone somewhere says they're necessary or worked to "Keep Us Safe" TM.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I'm not surprised that you are assigning views to people that they have not expressed, and in most cases have already said they do not hold.
Click to expand...

Those who don't hold those views are just being silent I guess.

I stated in my first post that I oppose the rendition techniques used by the CIA; but this in no way excuses the politically motivated actions of Feinstein and her pack of jackals. Her behavior is shameful and comes extremely close to outright treason. Clearly the democrats view Republicans as their enemy, and apparently willing to craft an alliance with Al Qaeda to attack the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Some democrats might, but I've had an entire discussion over two days without needing to mention republicans or democrats or make this a partisan issue. It crosses partisan lines, and my support of the release of the report is because I'm not aware of a way to hold people accountable, or hold our government accountable, when what they've done remains a secret. We can't protest or fight to change what we don't know exists. If you've got a suggestion, feel free to make it.

The entire party disgusts me.
Click to expand...

That's clear enough. The insane assertion that they're 'willing to craft an alliance with AQ' was another clue. Disagreeing with you doesn't make one a terrorist lover. I'm willing to gladly concede those who disagree with me can do so, and hold views 180 degrees from me on this issue, and have nothing but the best intentions for our country, our troops, and our continued safety. You might consider the same possibility.
 
Last edited:
Uncensored2008 said:
So, you respond by building a straw man? Figures.

The actions of Feinstein, et al. come close to treason in that they give aid and comfort to the the enemy, to wit, ISIS and Al Qaeda. Reread the law and see if you can grasp why this borders on treason?
Click to expand...

I didn't actually think the insane "treason" allegation deserved a serious response.

And if you want to assert that Feinstein has engaged in a treasonous act by releasing a report of act by the CIA regarding activities dating back at least 6 years, be my guest. In the interim, between the first revelations in the mid-2000s and this report, AQ and ISIS have needed no additional excuses to target U.S. interests, and AQ has been doing so non-stop since well before 9/11. If you think the release of this report somehow gives them additional aid and support, how and why? Be specific. And then you can explain how it's not the acts, but disclosing them, that are the core issue.

Etc.
 
JasperL said:
I didn't actually think the insane "treason" allegation deserved a serious response.
Click to expand...

How are they "insane?"

And if you want to assert that Feinstein has engaged in a treasonous act by releasing a report of act by the CIA regarding activities dating back at least 6 years, be my guest. In the interim, between the first revelations in the mid-2000s and this report, AQ and ISIS have needed no additional excuses to target U.S. interests, and AQ has been doing so non-stop since well before 9/11. If you think the release of this report somehow gives them additional aid and support, how and why? Be specific. And then you can explain how it's not the acts, but disclosing them, that are the core issue.

Etc.
Click to expand...


As stated dozens of times, Feinstein comes close to treason. I don't believe it could win in a court of law, yet it astounds me that some are so partisan as to defend her acts.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
How are they "insane?"

As stated dozens of times, Feinstein comes close to treason. I don't believe it could win in a court of law, yet it astounds me that some are so partisan as to defend her acts.
Click to expand...

It's insane because there's no basis for the charge, and you 'stating' it however many times doesn't make it so. Explain how this report meets the at least moral level of "treason."

And you've accused "democrats" of conspiring with AQ. Hilarious you're whinging about "some are so partisan..." :shock::lamo

FWIW, for actual liberals, Feinstein is a big government apologist and long time defender of the national security apparatus. To accuse HER of all people of conspiring with AQ, against the interests of the national security state she normally bows before, it particularly funny.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Well, he deserves a punch in the eye and charged with crimes against humanity. We both know that won't happen. As for attention, that's just whiny stuff. Anything that happens can be seen that way, and don't you remember bogus terror alerts and distractions under Bush? So, it's neither here nor there concerning anything being a distraction.
Click to expand...

Crimes against Humanity?!! lol, that's funny.

Waterboarding IS NOT torture, if you really wore those wings you would understand that.

We should have tortured them. We should have executed them on live TV and showed the world that we are not playing around anymore. That we don't care what they think of us and that if you are an enemy of this country, attack this nation in anyway, or assist those that do, you will suffer the consequences of your actions. REALLY SUFFER!!!
 
JasperL said:
It's insane because there's no basis for the charge, and you 'stating' it however many times doesn't make it so. Explain how this report meets the at least moral level of "treason."

And you've accused "democrats" of conspiring with AQ. Hilarious you're whinging about "some are so partisan..." :shock::lamo

FWIW, for actual liberals, Feinstein is a big government apologist and long time defender of the national security apparatus. To accuse HER of all people of conspiring with AQ, against the interests of the national security state she normally bows before, it particularly funny.
Click to expand...

At the moment you have to start making $hit up, you know you have lost.

I did not accuse the democrats of conspiring with AQ - you made that up. I said that DiFi, the outgoing chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, comes close to treason with her blatant aid and comfort to the enemy. What is it precisely, that you cannot grasp in this?

There is no practical gain for the nation in releasing a hatchet job at this time. It certainly does not enhance the security of the nation, exactly the opposite. The ONLY result of this is a propaganda tool for Islamists. Feinstein, bitter over the humiliating defeat her shameful party suffered in the last election, sought revenge on the nation by arming the Islamists with propaganda fodder that will damage this nation for years. DiFi never contacted or conspired with anyone other than her fellow democrats, but with an angst toward a nation who rejected them so strong that she threw a juicy bone to America's most dangerous and deadly enemy.
 
Rentoc said:
Crimes against Humanity?!! lol, that's funny.

Waterboarding IS NOT torture, if you really wore those wings you would understand that.

We should have tortured them. We should have executed them on live TV and showed the world that we are not playing around anymore. That we don't care what they think of us and that if you are an enemy of this country, attack this nation in anyway, or assist those that do, you will suffer the consequences of your actions. REALLY SUFFER!!!
Click to expand...

You're just factually wrong. Waterboarding has always been torture. We've considered it that and so does the rest of the world.

And I did wear those wings, which means I'm more than a weaker minded lacky. I think. I ask questions. I think critically. I can read and know our past. I listen when the military itself reports this is a bad idea. A true solider knows war is to be avoided when possible, that it is a saddness and not something to be cheered. Soldiers go to war reluctantly because they no the cost. And they know tortue us wrong, especially when we torture innocent people. And we did torture innocent people, not to mention that many had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq did not help with that attack. Too many speak in mindlessly generalized terms as you did above.

One more thing, if you live long enough, you may learn that your bluster is not convincing. Such blood lust is not justice, and others won't react in fear, but instead intensify their efforts. I pray you live long enough to learn better.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Perhaps not, but there was a lot more to it than waterboarding, and some of the prisoners just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If torture is such an effective technique, perhaps we should start using it in our war on drugs. Capture one gang banger, torture him until he gives up the names of his fellows, then capture and torture them as well. Pretty soon, the drug dealers will all have been captured, tortured, most of them killed, and we'll have won the war on drugs. Does that sound like a good idea?

Oh, and let's employ drones. Find out where the gangs hang out, send a drone to take them out. Sure, there could be a little collateral damage, but what the hey, we'll have wiped out a bunch of scummy gang bangers. If it works for the Middle East, surely it would work in East LA and similar places, right?
Click to expand...
LOL...Bingo, gottcha there ditto...See, I know that when you get all snarky and sarcastic, you've lost the debate at that moment so I will leave it at that.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're just factually wrong. Waterboarding has always been torture. We've considered it that and so does the rest of the world.

And I did wear those wings, which means I'm more than a weaker minded lacky. I think. I ask questions. I think critically. I can read and know our past. I listen when the military itself reports this is a bad idea. A true solider knows war is to be avoided when possible, that it is a saddness and not something to be cheered. Soldiers go to war reluctantly because they no the cost. And they know tortue us wrong, especially when we torture innocent people. And we did torture innocent people, not to mention that many had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq did not help with that attack. Too many speak in mindlessly generalized terms as you did above.

One more thing, if you live long enough, you may learn that your bluster is not convincing. Such blood lust is not justice, and others won't react in fear, but instead intensify their efforts. I pray you live long enough to learn better.
Click to expand...
[emoji38] meltdown
 
Uncensored2008 said:
At the moment you have to start making $hit up, you know you have lost.

I did not accuse the democrats of conspiring with AQ - you made that up. I said that DiFi, the outgoing chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, comes close to treason with her blatant aid and comfort to the enemy. What is it precisely, that you cannot grasp in this?
Click to expand...

I guess I got you confused with the other "Uncensored2008" who said this:

"Clearly the democrats view Republicans as their enemy, and apparently willing to craft an alliance with Al Qaeda to attack the Republicans.
Click to expand...

My apologies!

And all you've done so far is assert without the slightest explanation that she's committed treason. It's really not enough to assert it - generally if you're going to lob an incendiary charge like that, you'd tell us the basis for it.

There is no practical gain for the nation in releasing a hatchet job at this time. It certainly does not enhance the security of the nation, exactly the opposite. The ONLY result of this is a propaganda tool for Islamists. Feinstein, bitter over the humiliating defeat her shameful party suffered in the last election, sought revenge on the nation by arming the Islamists with propaganda fodder that will damage this nation for years. DiFi never contacted or conspired with anyone other than her fellow democrats, but with an angst toward a nation who rejected them so strong that she threw a juicy bone to America's most dangerous and deadly enemy.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. There is no practical gain in burying the sins of our past, which is what you seem to think is the only legitimate option, and anyone who doesn't agree is committing treason.

Besides, the report has been in process for years, begun when the democrats had control of the WH, the House and Senate. Did you think they'd spend 6 years and then bury the report. If not, and you expected a release, then how in the hell do you conclude that the release that's been in process for a year or so is related to the losses in November? It's a rhetorical question - you're a blind partisan so see all things through that lens...
 
Rentoc said:
Crimes against Humanity?!! lol, that's funny.

Waterboarding IS NOT torture, if you really wore those wings you would understand that.

We should have tortured them. We should have executed them on live TV and showed the world that we are not playing around anymore. That we don't care what they think of us and that if you are an enemy of this country, attack this nation in anyway, or assist those that do, you will suffer the consequences of your actions. REALLY SUFFER!!!
Click to expand...

Poe's Law example - can't tell if this is serious or not. If it is serious, then it's a shame you have so little regard for your country.
 
joG said:
That is why we need to establish a robust global system with a general system of security for populations is commonly upheld.
Click to expand...

Good Idea!

So..... who do you think is going to pony up for this brave new world?
 
Ikari said:
Yes, that's a reason not to run around making vacuums.
Click to expand...

I would concur. Instead we should seek to push hostile elements from the critical spaces that they currently control or influence.

And that doesn't mean that we should constantly have imperial troops everywhere.
Click to expand...

:( Unfortunately, it does mean that we need to maintain a forward-leaning defense posture. For example, were you to pull the 5th Fleet from Bahrain, or the 7th Fleet out of the Pacific, you would create massive vacuums that belligerents would rush to fill.

But we cannot do this for infinity, or rather our infinity war requires that we move about to engage other actors
Click to expand...

:shrug: It's not us who decided to engage in a multi-generational war - it was them. War's don't end when one side gets' bored of the whole thing and decides to go home and watch movies instead, it requires both actors to cease hostilities.

And we can, in fact, sustain our defense spending pretty much indefinitely at this point - increase it, even. Defense isn't what's driving the deficit, our burgeoning entitlements are.

When we do, because we made the vacuum in the first place, because we do not try to solve issues,
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. We created space for ourselves and the possibility that later we could create vacuums by withdrawing precisely because we were trying to solve issues. For example, the U.S. has a fleet in Bahrain not least to keep the Iranians from holding the worlds' oil sea-lanes hostage (that's us solving an issue), and we stationed troops in the Middle East for decades in order to help keep Israel and Egypt from going to war again (that's us solving an issue), and we have troops helping the Iraqi's now so that they can more effectively combat a terrorist-state (that's us helping to solve an issue).

We don't deploy because something looks pretty on a map - we deploy explicitly to solve issues.

because we're moving about in the area to engage other theaters, naturally we leave behind environments ideal for breeding terrorism.
Click to expand...

You cannot move around in a single area to engage other theaters. That's like saying that you are going to move around within your town in order to move to the next country.

But it's clear, we cannot keep up this style of intervention and solve the issue.
Click to expand...

A) we can and
B) to the extent that they are solvable, we can definitely be a part of the solution. Certainly our absence only makes these issues worse.
 
cpwill said:
I would concur. Instead we should seek to push hostile elements from the critical spaces that they currently control or influence.
Click to expand...

"We" should? And isn't it a bit difficult to figure out who are the "hostile elements" we should push out and who we should allow in those newly purged spaces?

:shrug: It's not us who decided to engage in a multi-generational war - it was them. War's don't end when one side gets' bored of the whole thing and decides to go home and watch movies instead, it requires both actors to cease hostilities.
Click to expand...

Well, it was sort of us who decided to meddle in that region. I suppose one could say we need to keep a permanent presence there for oil or to protect Israel, but that's a choice we made.

And we can, in fact, sustain our defense spending pretty much indefinitely at this point - increase it, even. Defense isn't what's driving the deficit, our burgeoning entitlements are.
Click to expand...

Defense certainly contributes to the deficit - it's a quarter or so of the budget.

That is incorrect. We created space for ourselves and the possibility that later we could create vacuums by withdrawing precisely because we were trying to solve issues. For example, the U.S. has a fleet in Bahrain not least to keep the Iranians from holding the worlds' oil sea-lanes hostage (that's us solving an issue), and we stationed troops in the Middle East for decades in order to help keep Israel and Egypt from going to war again (that's us solving an issue), and we have troops helping the Iraqi's now so that they can more effectively combat a terrorist-state (that's us helping to solve an issue).
Click to expand...

I'll just say that on some of those we create a problem then stay to solve the 'issue' we created a decade previous. It's not possible to rewind history, but you can't say our troops are in Iraq to solve the issue of them dealing with a terrorist state without noting that the U.S. breaking the country allowed the terrorist state to emerge.

A) we can and
B) to the extent that they are solvable, we can definitely be a part of the solution. Certainly our absence only makes these issues worse.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all clear that had we not invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq, that the "issues" would have been worse than now. Who knows, but it's certainly not a given that our decades of meddling has been a net positive to regional stability.
 
cpwill said:
Good Idea!

So..... who do you think is going to pony up for this brave new world?
Click to expand...

Starfleet. It's real! Sweartogawd!
 
JasperL said:
"We" should? And isn't it a bit difficult to figure out who are the "hostile elements" we should push out and who we should allow in those newly purged spaces?
Click to expand...

Yes. We should. And only tactically. But that's why we have an intelligence community :)

Well, it was sort of us who decided to meddle in that region.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - the war between us and AQAA was launched by the other side.

I suppose one could say we need to keep a permanent presence there for oil or to protect Israel, but that's a choice we made.
Click to expand...

Sure, it was a choice we made to solve problems - namely, how do you handle the worlds' most geopolitically important resource being located in one of its least stable regions, and how do you stop nation-states in that region from going to war every decade or so because one group wants to wipe out every member of the other. In the latter case, it has the added urgency that the group who is intended for annihilation is probably nuclear, and could respond in such a manner if it felt it had no choice.

Defense certainly contributes to the deficit - it's a quarter or so of the budget.
Click to expand...

Nate Silver: What is driving the increase in government spending

Hint: Defense is still at a post-war low as a portion of GDP. Our defense spending is sustainable. Our entitlements (and, possibly, if rates rise, interest payments) are not.

I'll just say that on some of those we create a problem then stay to solve the 'issue' we created a decade previous.
Click to expand...

When did we deliberately create a problem so that we have an excuse to stick around?

It's not possible to rewind history, but you can't say our troops are in Iraq to solve the issue of them dealing with a terrorist state without noting that the U.S. breaking the country allowed the terrorist state to emerge.
Click to expand...

True story. It turns out there is no perfect solution, and each problem solved often means that another will rise in its stead. We defeated Hitler, and then had to face Stalin. We beat Communism, and then had to face Islamic Fundamentalism. After Islamic Fundamentalism, it will be something else.

But here's the trick on that: foreign policy isn't optional. There is a living example today of what happens when a country decides that it is. That country is North Korea. If we like our nice first-world lifestyle, then we have to protect the global supply chains and trade order that makes that possible.

I'm not at all clear that had we not invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq, that the "issues" would have been worse than now. Who knows, but it's certainly not a given that our decades of meddling has been a net positive to regional stability.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. It has been almost half a century now since Israel went to war against another nation-state, Afghanistan, for all it is problematic, is not being run by the Taliban and Iraq, for all that the North is a security nightmare, is still a (roughly) functioning representative government rather than a psycho-dictatorship with a history of attacking its neighbors.

As Hitchens pointed out - if the West doesn't interject itself, it doesn't mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom