America - The Official Thread

[Famine]

North Vietnam never attacked America, nor did the Iranians, Iraqis or Syrians. In fact, no other nation has attacked the US homeland in the last 200 years, with the exception of extra-national Al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia on 911.

Except Japan of course.

 

[Joey D]

In what way & where do you think they are going to "attack"? The US is the 800 pound gorilla on the global stage. It is a behemoth in terms of its military, political & economic dominance. North Vietnam never attacked America, nor did the Iranians, Iraqis or Syrians. In fact, no other nation has attacked the US homeland in the last 200 years, with the exception of extra-national Al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia on 911.

We fought a war with Mexico in the mid 1800s. Also, during WWII, Germany managed to attack the US in addition to Japan at Pearl Harbor.

If you want to go a little looser with the 200 year timeline, there was also the War of 1812.

 

[BobK]

Except Japan of course.

We fought a war with Mexico in the mid 1800s. Also, during WWII, Germany managed to attack the US in addition to Japan at Pearl Harbor.

If you want to go a little looser with the 200 year timeline, there was also the War of 1812.

All true, but why let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument?

 

[Famine]

Japan didn't just hit Pearl Harbor during WW2. It struck the Lower 48 too, around 300 times, and killed six people in Oregon.


Edit: *sigh* Park Life ↓

 

[Dotini]

In a parallel universe, history could have taken a different course. McKinley might never have taken the US onto the Imperial path. Europe and Japan might not have been so warlike in the first half of the 20th Century. As it happened, America was regrettably(?) called upon by destiny and other people's wars to come to the rescue militarily, politically and economically. The result is the uneasy condition you see today. The status quo is holding, but fraying badly at the seams and edges. Undoubtedly a paradigm shift is coming, and its unlikely to be for the better.

 

[Blitz24]

Except Japan of course.

Or Mexico during the Mexican-American war.
Or Germany during WWI

 

[huskeR32]

All true, but why let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument?

Getting one fact wrong doesn't suddenly render his entire argument "emotional."

There's only one emotional argument being made here, and it goes a little something like "Screw them, we should keep their money and ignore all the reasons why that's a terrible idea!" That you didn't call that one out for being "emotional" is pretty telling.

 

[ryzno]

You can't do "a little reading". The situation in the Middle East is VERY complicated ...

That I figured out when jj told me to go back to '53, my dad was 1 then lol.
I have changed my opinion about the money and the entire situation.

 

[Biggles]

All true, but why let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument?

Emotional argument? Really? This is an emotional argument:

After a little reading I definitely think we should've kept the money. Screw them.
If the tribunal thinks they deserved 10 billion after holding 52 Americans for 444 days screw them too. I hope they are stupid enough to attack.

We fought a war with Mexico in the mid 1800s. Also, during WWII, Germany managed to attack the US in addition to Japan at Pearl Harbor.

If you want to go a little looser with the 200 year timeline, there was also the War of 1812.

The War of 1812? The town I live in was burned to the ground by American troops - that may be why I'm so "emotional" about it. (The British reciprocated soon thereafter).

The war with Mexico? C'mon. An expansionist US clashing with Mexico over undefined border territories.

Pearl Harbor? OK - but I'm not sure that an attack on a military & colonial outpost in the middle of the Pacific ocean qualifies as an attack on the "homeland".

Let's be realistic. The US emerged as the dominant world power after the Second World War, held in check only by the military & nuclear strength (but pathetic economic capabilities) of the Soviet Union. It's done what every dominant power in world history has done: tried to impose its will on the other countries. It's done that with perhaps more circumspection & restraint than other similarly dominant countries in the past ... but it's certainly done it. Sometimes, as in the case of other countries in the past, its attempt to impose its will has had unintended & disastrous consequences.

The "Trump Doctrine" - as I see it - is a reaffirmation of the Monroe Doctrine, but on a global scale. Trump believes that the US has the right - granted by its economic & military power - to ignore international cooperation & agreements & act in a completely unilateral way in pursuit of its own interests. So far this has taken the form of breaking treaties, imposing trade sanctions & insulting its adversaries & allies. It seems that Trump draws a lot of support from people in the US whose attitude to any kind of international resistance to the imposition of US dominance is "screw them".

 

[Danoff]

Emotional argument? Really? This is an emotional argument:





The War of 1812? The town I live in was burned to the ground by American troops - that may be why I'm so "emotional" about it. (The British reciprocated soon thereafter).

The war with Mexico? C'mon. An expansionist US clashing with Mexico over undefined border territories.

Pearl Harbor? OK - but I'm not sure that an attack on a military & colonial outpost in the middle of the Pacific ocean qualifies as an attack on the "homeland".

Let's be realistic. The US emerged as the dominant world power after the Second World War, held in check only by the military & nuclear strength (but pathetic economic capabilities) of the Soviet Union. It's done what every dominant power in world history has done: tried to impose its will on the other countries. It's done that with perhaps more circumspection & restraint than other similarly dominant countries in the past ... but it's certainly done it. Sometimes, as in the case of other countries in the past, its attempt to impose its will has had unintended & disastrous consequences.

The "Trump Doctrine" - as I see it - is a reaffirmation of the Monroe Doctrine, but on a global scale. Trump believes that the US has the right - granted by its economic & military power - to ignore international cooperation & agreements & act in a completely unilateral way in pursuit of its own interests. So far this has taken the form of breaking treaties, imposing trade sanctions & insulting its adversaries & allies. It seems that Trump draws a lot of support from people in the US whose attitude to any kind of international resistance to the imposition of US dominance is "screw them".

This is well written. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I love the "screw them" tie in. Just wanted to say that you've crafted your prose nicely here.

Do you think the US is more imposing of its will before or after the USSR?

 

[Biggles]

That I figured out when jj told me to go back to '53, my dad was 1 then lol.
I have changed my opinion about the money and the entire situation.

When it comes to the Middle East, there are no "good guys". It's a very difficult, complex situation. There's no obvious moral, ethical ... or even practical solution. I would really recommend you (or anyone else) watch the Ken Burns documentary series about the Vietnam war. It's a sobering illustration of how badly things can go wrong & how, often, there are no "good guys".

This is well written. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I love the "screw them" tie in. Just wanted to say that you've crafted your prose nicely here.

Do you think the US is more imposing of its will before or after the USSR?

The overall point is that the US has never been existentially threatened since the American Revolution. Many other countries, even large, powerful countries, have been. Smaller countries, like Iran, have been facing existential threats for decades.

I think opposition to the expansionist aims of the Soviets led the US to make very poor decisions in foreign policy for decades. The collapse of the Soviet Union removed that element in US decision making. However, as the Iraq war demonstrated, the US was still capable of making bad decisions & miscalculations on a grand scale.

I think the danger of Trump is that by putting the interests of America above everything else, he invites other countries to do the same - in fact, it seems he positively encourages it. Trump's calculation is, that as the US is the dominant power in the world, it stands the most to gain & the least to lose by advocating for national self-interest. The idea that the world is going to be better off with the leadership of every country aggressively pursuing their perception of that country's self-interest - that's a recipe for disaster IMO.

 

[the_boy]

When it comes to the Middle East, there are no "good guys". It's a very difficult, complex situation. There's no obvious moral, ethical ... or even practical solution. I would really recommend you (or anyone else) watch the Ken Burns documentary series about the Vietnam war. It's a sobering illustration of how badly things can go wrong & how, often, there are no "good guys".



The overall point is that the US has never been existentially threatened since the American Revolution. Many other countries, even large, powerful countries, have been. Smaller countries, like Iran, have been facing existential threats for decades.

I think opposition to the expansionist aims of the Soviets led the US to make very poor decisions in foreign policy for decades. The collapse of the Soviet Union removed that element in US decision making. However, as the Iraq war demonstrated, the US was still capable of making bad decisions & miscalculations on a grand scale.

I think the danger of Trump is that by putting the interests of America above everything else, he invites other countries to do the same - in fact, it seems he positively encourages it. Trump's calculation is, that as the US is the dominant power in the world, it stands the most to gain & the least to lose by advocating for national self-interest. The idea that the world is going to be better off with the leadership of every country aggressively pursuing their perception of that country's self-interest - that's a recipe for disaster IMO.

Even 9/11 didn’t make a dent (it does suck that many civilians got murdered). Some even cashed in on it by making movies about it. Some people just want to win an argument by arguing in bad faith (welfare is a good example, blame all the recipients, but not the providers. Or immigration, blame all the migrants, but let the people who made bad deals by destabilizing the region off the hook)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you think the US is more imposing of its will before or after the USSR?

The overall point is that the US has never been existentially threatened since the American Revolution.

To an extent they have - if they hadn't intervened in the European land war of the 1940s then they ran the risk of being beaten by the Russians in the race for Germany*. Losing that huge amount military, technological and industrial leverage would have led the US down a very different path to the privileged one they were able to tread. They wouldn't have been poor by any means but they wouldn't be the industrial, military powerhouse they are without the gains from Germany. That potential loss was a threat they felt very keenly at the time.

*In that case they'd no doubt have recouped territory in Europe by re-invading a fallen Britain but the tech would be lost

 

[Sander 001]

Trump has retweeted a proposal that he take an additional 2 year extension to his current term.

So he can run the deficit up to make his personal business losses of $1billion dollars seem smaller

 

[Biggles]

To an extent they have - if they hadn't intervened in the European land war of the 1940s then they ran the risk of being beaten by the Russians in the race for Germany*. Losing that huge amount military, technological and industrial leverage would have led the US down a very different path to the privileged one they were able to tread. They wouldn't have been poor by any means but they wouldn't be the industrial, military powerhouse they are without the gains from Germany. That potential loss was a threat they felt very keenly at the time.

*In that case they'd no doubt have recouped territory in Europe by re-invading a fallen Britain but the tech would be lost

I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on what you're saying? If the US hadn't intervened in WWII it's unlikely that the Russians would have been in a position to invade Germany. Pearl Harbor prompted the US to enter the war as its influence in the Pacific was threatened by Japanese expansionism.

It seems to me that the intervention of the US in WWII was required to save Europeans from themselves ... but in the process the US emerged as the undisputed economic & military super power in the world. The ensuing struggle between the US & Soviet Union was a weird mix of ideological posturing & Realpolitik. Let's face it though, without its formidable nuclear arsenal Russia would be, at best, a large but economically insignificant 2nd or 3rd tier nation. I guess that's why countries like North Korea & Iran see the possession of nuclear weapons as a guarantor of their independence & global status.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on what you're saying? If the US hadn't intervened in WWII it's unlikely that the Russians would have been in a position to invade Germany.

I'm not sure that's the case, Russia and China would have been the only natural allies against Japan and Germany and, through sheer weight of numbers and (grindingly slow) production capacity, could have turned the war. Germany was nearly done in late 1942 and again by early 1945.

It seems to me that the intervention of the US in WWII was required to save Europeans from themselves ...

Possibly, but to what end? The loss of power in the region was unthinkable. As it became more evident that Germany had developed far superior technology to any other nation there was even more impetus to not only defeat them but to gather the spoils. The primary reason for the US Navy joining the war in 1941 (as non-combatant 'advisers' with 50 warships to advise with) was to secure the British Isles, essential as a US base of operations. At the same time huge funds were put together to support greater bomber production in advance of heavy bombardment of the Reich.

The ensuing struggle between the US & Soviet Union was a weird mix of ideological posturing & Realpolitik.

It was a tense standoff across Germany with a genuine race to capture assets, technology and personnel. Think how many US space/military programmes, vital to the nation's ambitions, were built on the back of those gains. And the backs of Jewish slaves, of course, but then few international companies of the day escape that particular legacy.

Let's face it though, without its formidable nuclear arsenal Russia would be, at best, a large but economically insignificant 2nd or 3rd tier nation.

Remember where much of the European energy comes from - Russia has a huge surplus and neither they nor the Soviet would be insignificant. It's also unlikely that the Soviet wouldn't have created nuclear weapons, they were only a few years behind the Americans in that regard, but their delivery system development suffered from not securing von Braun first.

 

[mustafur]

So it looks like Iran is going to make nukes now, despite following the protocols set up by the US that Trump just decided wasn't good enough and tossed them out then slapped sanctions on them for no reason(who wants to make a bet the Saudi weapons deal had something to do with this).

When Trump has massive Warhawks like John Bolton and Pompeo in his staff he loses any credibility he can possibly have on this, those guys would agree to any war with anyone for any reason they are basically just sacks of money from the Military Industrial complex.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...ame-europe-betrayal-iran-190508204815694.html

 

[PocketZeven]

So it looks like Iran is going to make nukes now, despite following the protocols set up by the US that Trump just decided wasn't good enough and tossed them out then slapped sanctions on them for no reason(who wants to make a bet the Saudi weapons deal had something to do with this).

When Trump has massive Warhawks like John Bolton and Pompeo in his staff he loses any credibility he can possibly have on this, those guys would agree to any war with anyone for any reason they are basically just sacks of money from the Military Industrial complex.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...ame-europe-betrayal-iran-190508204815694.html

Trump wants a war. Mainly because every "great" presidents had one. In his mind he wants to be remembered as the greatest of all time..

Edit: Also he just loves being a schoolyard bully.

 

[TexRex]

I asked a while back but it appeared to have been lost in the shuffle, so I'll try again:

What's increasing the minimum age to legally purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21 supposed to accomplish?

I've seen a statistic cited (I don't recall the actual figure and I don't think it's particularly relevant) regarding the number of smokers that started smoking before the age of 21, seemingly suggesting that people won't start at all if they don't start before that age.

Is the goal to have people not start, and as a result not have smokers in this country? Why not prohibit its sale outright? I'm not a smoker (I tried my first and last cigarette at 15) and I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the age increase seems like a non-fix that will only ruffle feathers.

Edit: I should say that I refer specifically to legislation on the matter, and not the right of businesses to change their policy so long as doing so doesn't conflict with law.

 

[Northstar]

What's increasing the minimum age to legally purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21 supposed to accomplish?

It's the government version of "look busy when the boss is around".

Why not prohibit its sale outright?

They can tax them, that's why.

 

[Dotini]

I think it'a a sincere attempt to improve the general health of Americans.

 

[TexRex]

It's the government version of "look busy when the boss is around".

Thing is, there are people outside of government proper who are pushing for it--I suppose those in government proper are making an effort to appease them--and I think it's just baffling.

And I wonder if those able to purchase legally prior to, and not after, a law going into effect would be grandfathered in...or if they'd effectively be required to quit cold turkey or acquire products illegally?

I've also seen indications that those in the armed forced would be exempt from this legislation, but I suppose most of the major health problems come after the majority rotate out of service when the military is no longer responsible for their care.

They can tax them, that's why.

I mean...sure, but it's not like taxation begins at the age of 21. Any decrease in purchases represents a decrease in revenue.

 

[Danoff]

Why do we tolerate states crafting political messages (usually about discrimination) and forcing employers to sit their employees in front of the state-sponsored political message for the prescribed amount of time to complete this brainwa... training each year?

Is this not profoundly wrong?

 

[BobK]

Why do we tolerate states crafting political messages (usually about discrimination) and forcing employers to sit their employees in front of the state-sponsored political message for the prescribed amount of time to complete this brainwa... training each year?

Does the regulation require the employees to stay awake through the whole session(s), do you know?

Is this not profoundly wrong?

Yes, it's very wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rallywagon]

I asked a while back but it appeared to have been lost in the shuffle, so I'll try again:

What's increasing the minimum age to legally purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21 supposed to accomplish?

I've seen a statistic cited (I don't recall the actual figure and I don't think it's particularly relevant) regarding the number of smokers that started smoking before the age of 21, seemingly suggesting that people won't start at all if they don't start before that age.

Is the goal to have people not start, and as a result not have smokers in this country? Why not prohibit its sale outright? I'm not a smoker (I tried my first and last cigarette at 15) and I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the age increase seems like a non-fix that will only ruffle feathers.

Edit: I should say that I refer specifically to legislation on the matter, and not the right of businesses to change their policy so long as doing so doesn't conflict with law.

Perhaps the idea is to postpone the legal sale of a known carcinogen until the brain has developed enough to better understand the consequences? From a public health stand point it would be my logical explanation. However, having been a smoker, myself and most of the smokers I know started smoking long before being the legal age as it is. I never worried about the legalities unless there was a cop somewhere to see me smoking back then. I can't imagine it being so different today. Well, maybe a little less Joe Cool ads to subliminally coerce children these days. And no more cool fruity chocolate flavors.

 

[TexRex]

Perhaps the idea is to postpone the legal sale of a known carcinogen until the brain has developed enough to better understand the consequences? From a public health stand point it would be my logical explanation. However, having been a smoker, myself and most of the smokers I know started smoking long before being the legal age as it is. I never worried about the legalities unless there was a cop somewhere to see me smoking back then. I can't imagine it being so different today. Well, maybe a little less Joe Cool ads to subliminally coerce children these days. And no more cool fruity chocolate flavors.

I mean...I might be able to get behind that, but then [if this is indeed the reasoning behind the legislation; I'm by no means saying you're wrong and need to back this up] I wonder what's supporting the notion that those under the age of 21 are on average less capable of understanding those consequences than those who have crossed that threshold.

 

[Rallywagon]

I mean...I might be able to get behind that, but then [if this is indeed the reasoning behind the legislation; I'm by no means saying you're wrong and need to back this up] I wonder what's supporting the notion that those under the age of 21 are on average less capable of understanding those consequences than those who have crossed that threshold.

Why... medical research of course.
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

 

[TexRex]

Why... medical research of course.
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

But the brain not being fully developed until 25 doesn't mean that an 18yo is incapable of understanding consequences or that a 21yo is more capable of understanding consequences. And what of the potential consequences of enlisting for military service (something I seem to recall you yourself did)?

I'm not saying any changes should or shouldn't be made, rather that it strikes me as...arbitrary.

 

[Rallywagon]

But the brain not being fully developed until 25 doesn't mean that an 18yo is incapable of understanding consequences or that a 21yo is more capable of understanding consequences. And what of the potential consequences of enlisting for military service (something I seem to recall you yourself did)?

I'm not saying any changes should or shouldn't be made, rather that it strikes me as...arbitrary.

I mean, personal variance aside, someone who is 18 is going to be less understanding or cognitively aware of the consequences than someone who is 21.
As for enlisting, and drinking, and drug use, and probably driving, I would like top see all of those raised to 21, in fact, some of them probably 24.
The issue with military is a little more complex. That is to say, someone is probably less likely to enlist the older they get, mostly because of maturity and better understanding of the consequences. While over all I think that would be beneficial, I don't own a share in the military industrial complex. I can't imagine they want people to be fully capable of understanding consequence. They want kids that will follow the orders passed down to them and to perform them even at great risk to themselves.
As for it being arbitrary, well, I mean, how did we decided 18 was the magic "now your an adult" number? 18 seems quite arbitrary in of itself to be honest. Something like 24 or 25 at least has some scientific bases to it.

 

[TexRex]

I mean, personal variance aside, someone who is 18 is going to be less understanding or cognitively aware of the consequences than someone who is 21.

Okay, a 21yo is almost undoubtedly more capable of understanding risks; I probably should have said that a 21yo isn't necessarily capable of understanding these particular risks when an 18yo is not. Mind you there isn't a great deal of nuance being suggested here...you smoke, you get hooked, it kills you.

As for it being arbitrary, well, I mean, how did we decided 18 was the magic "now your an adult" number? 18 seems quite arbitrary in of itself to be honest. Something like 24 or 25 at least has some scientific bases to it.

I'm really glad you acknowledge that because it's a big part of my thinking as well. That said, changing from one arbitrary age to another arbitrary age strikes me as daft.

As for what I didn't quote, well, I think you hit the nail right on the nose.

...

I'm still curious what the ultimate goal is here. Is it actually to affect a meaningful change (which is what, exactly) or is it to make it seem like you're doing something without compromising your standing too greatly? I get the legislation coming from the bleeding heart left, but it coming from McConnell definitely seems more like the latter.