The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[The Romulan Republic]

Excellent.

Whatever else one may say about Sanders, he had a phenomenal fundraising capability. If they can get even a significant portion of that behind down-ballot races, particularly the Senate, it could make a big difference.

[Simon_Jester]

Especially if you combine that with a lot of Republicans in swing states having problems because Trump's position at the top of the ballot is costing them votes.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Pacifism and non-interference are not uncommon concepts in any part of the world; they usually have many adherents, perhaps even the majority of the population.
<snip>
Let us not avoid discussion about Clinton's potential to start even more disastrous wars given her ties to the military industrial complex.

And you completely missed the point that Simon made perfectly clear in several posts.

It's only relevant for discussion of the election if you can demonstrate that Clinton has greater potential to do so than Trump and the Republican party. Which, well, you can't, because every single one of the measures that Clinton supported in the past that is used to trumpet her ties to the military industrial complex was ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. All the hand-waiving about Trump's supposed isolationism is irrelevant, because if he wins it is the GOP that is going to be in charge, and they are just as, if not more so, hawkish than Clinton is (and have been, consistently, for a long time). Unless you can somehow prove that Clinton is worse than the Republicans in this regard, it's an irrelevant point.

(And this is without going into the fact, already well discussed over the past several pages, that the major piece of evidence in support of the Clinton = war debate is her vote for intervention in Syria, which we've already demonstrated is not as clear-cut as some of the more dishonest people would like to think)

[K. A. Pital]

Why are you so sure I cannot demonstrate that Clinton has a greater potential to do so?

Clinton supported full-scale war in Syria - and it is pretty clear-cut that this would have, very likely, led to a similar outcome as the other two Middle Eastern debacles. I am amazed that people have such a short memory. You think fullscale invasion and bombing with limited invasion have not been tried before? As we have seen with Iraq (fullscale invasion) and Libya (bombing intervention plus special forces), there is no beneficial outcome through this intervention for the inhabitants of said nations. Iraq is a wreck like Syria, itching to fall apart. Same for Libya, a failed state overrun by islamists and clan warlords of various brands.

Second point is the greatest volume of military-industrial complex donations for Clinton relative to any other candidate, including Trump. If people whose jobs and multimillion profts depend on war and weapons invest into a politician, I am inclined very seriously to consider this politician a threat to peace.

Third point is that Trump's self-professed isolationism is not even relevant here. It is just about Clinton alone so far.

But I am also far from the only person who, based on the information at hand, concludes that this time, Clinton is outhawking even Republicans.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democra ... ublicanse/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz ... -hawk.html

These are left-liberal media, and when they warn people about Clinton, I think even her allies and nominal supporters are deep within their hearts aware of just what she is.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Clinton supported full-scale war in Syria - and it is pretty clear-cut that this would have, very likely, led to a similar outcome as the other two Middle Eastern debacles. I am amazed that people have such a short memory. You think fullscale invasion and bombing with limited invasion have not been tried before? As we have seen with Iraq (fullscale invasion) and Libya (bombing intervention plus special forces), there is no beneficial outcome through this intervention for the inhabitants of said nations. Iraq is a wreck like Syria, itching to fall apart. Same for Libya, a failed state overrun by islamists and clan warlords of various brands.

So, again, you admit you haven't read the discussion on this over the past several pages? It's meaningless to raise this point without directly addressing the flaws in it that have already been spelled out numerous times, by Simon and others.

Third point is that Trump's self-professed isolationism is not even relevant here. It is just about Clinton alone so far.

So, you admit you didn't read my post at all?

I'd address your other points if it weren't so clear that you were completely dead set on utterly ignoring mine.

[Patroklos]

Clinton supported full-scale war in Syria - and it is pretty clear-cut that this would have, very likely, led to a similar outcome as the other two Middle Eastern debacles

She never advocated full scale war. She advocated mild airstrikes with a bent towards decapitation. Which is worse. There are two possible lessons from Iraq: military power in the region just wont work no matter what so don't try, or go big or go home. Hillary and crowd apparently learned nothing and decided to go in with less, just like she orchestrated for Libya, and the probable result is obvious.

It wasn't just her though. Kerry was all about Libya x1000 (results, not effort) too.

[K. A. Pital]

Which flaws were raised by Simon and others? Like, well, invasion sure has a crappy result but so does the actual civil war as it turned out? What the hell is that supposed to prove, that intervention a good thing?

Your only argument was "but the Republicans also supported intervention". That may very well be true, but how does this absolve Clinton? And the most important part - why aren't defense contractors pouring money into Republican coffers, as they usually did before?

[maraxus2]

Your only argument was "but the Republicans also supported intervention". That may very well be true, but how does this absolve Clinton? And the most important part - why aren't defense contractors pouring money into Republican coffers, as they usually did before?

Because Trump looks like he's certain to lose. That much should be obvious to anyone paying even the slightest attention to the horserace. Why would you want to dump money into a campaign that's going to lose? Is this seriously evidence of some kind of Clinton malfeasance?

[K. A. Pital]

That was evident before Trump looked certain to lose. And this was, apparently, before Sanders dropped out of the race.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/C ... -0002.html

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04 ... ry-clinton

Why would you want to dump money into a campaign that's going to lose?

So the defense just invested in Clinton because they know she'll win? How? At one point, even the total wreckage that is Trump polled higher. That's not an explanation. But maybe the below quote is:

On her campaign website she [Clinton] has argued for "permanently ending the damaging sequester" — meaning she supports rolling back budget caps that tried to curtail the federal deficit by limiting how much government agencies, including the Department of Defense, can spend.

And this:
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundati ... nt-1934187

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

This has a direct relation to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Ara ... n_in_Yemen
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 02312.html

But sure, there's no evidence for any morally questionable actions - actions, Carl, not intentions, not speeches - by Clinton.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I know it's a bit late, but I had to mention this:

Farage tells Trump rally: I wouldn't vote for Clinton if you paid me



Nigel Farage has told a Donald Trump rally he wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton "if you paid me".

The former Ukip leader appeared on stage with the Republican presidential candidate - who he met for the first time on Wednesday - in Mississippi.

He drew cheers from the crowds as he launched into a speech saying: "I couldn't possibly vote for who you should vote for in this election.

"But, if I was an American citizen I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me."

He added: "In fact, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if she paid me."



Earlier Trump introduced Farage as "the man behind Brexit" who had won "against the odds".

Farage - who stepped down as Ukip leader following the Brexit vote saying he had "done his job" - said he had come to the US "with a message of hope and optimism".

His advice to Americans was to "get their walking boots out and get out there campaigning".

He added: "And remember, anything is possible if enough decent people are prepared to stand up against the establishment."

Moron doesn't seem to understand that only Bill Pullman can pull off an Independence Day speech.

Link

Didn't take Clinton long to respond:

Hillary Clinton has launched a stinging attack on Nigel Farage after the former Ukip leader said he wouldn't vote for her "if she paid me."

Mr Farage gave his views on Mrs Clinton during a Republican campaign rally on Wednesday evening, appearing on stage alongside presidential candidate Donald Trump in Mississippi.

However addressing a 'Stronger Together' rally on Thursday, Mrs Clinton addressed Mr Farage as "one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders" and said he only won the EU referendum by stoking "anti-immigrant sentiments".



She added: "[Farage] supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race.

"That's who Donald Trump wants by his side, when he is addressing an audience of American voters.

Mrs Clinton then delivered a blistering denunciation of Mr Trump, accusing him of embracing Mr Farage's political philosophy.

She added: "The grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian president Vladimir Putin.

"Farage regularly appears on Russian propaganda programmes, now he's standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee".



In a swift rebuttal, Nigel Farage issued a statement condemning her "completely baseless" attack, and compared the Democratic presidential candidate to vocal Remain campaigner Bob Geldof.

He said: "I think Hillary Clinton is running scared. Her attacks on me are completely baseless. She sounds rather like Bob Geldof and can’t accept Brexit.

"Perhaps Mrs Clinton should spend more time speaking to normal, working people in her country than trying to attack me using dodgy half-quotes".

Link

[maraxus2]

That was evident before Trump looked certain to lose. And this was, apparently, before Sanders dropped out of the race.

Yes, and? Your own link shows that they donated 300K to Bernie's campaign as well. Does that mean anything? Not necessarily. Demonstrate a quid-pro-quo if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you're just shouting into the void about practices that are common in presidential elections.

So the defense just invested in Clinton because they know she'll win? How? At one point, even the total wreckage that is Trump polled higher. That's not an explanation. But maybe the below quote is:

Leaving aside the fact that Trump has never led Clinton, it absolutely is an explanation. Corporate donors give money to people who don't necessarily support their interests. My old Congresswoman got donations from ExxonMobile and other oil companies all the time, despite it never impacting her voting behavior.

Corporations donate money to people who look like they will win an election, and they will withhold it from campaigns who look like they're going to lose, unless they have a specific reason to do so. This is such a basic point that I find it difficult to believe that I need to elaborate to someone as educated as you.

On her campaign website she [Clinton] has argued for "permanently ending the damaging sequester" — meaning she supports rolling back budget caps that tried to curtail the federal deficit by limiting how much government agencies, including the Department of Defense, can spend.

There's another reason behind wanting to end the sequester, namely it's terrible and it sucks and everyone in Congress hates it. But hey, why let obvious explanations get in the way of a good conspiracy?

And this:
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundati ... nt-1934187

Snip

Don't get me wrong, the Clintons have a major problem with the fact that they can't see how other people perceive them. Her embrace of right-wing war criminals like Max Boot and Henry Kissinger is pretty gross.

But you're asserting, without much evidence, that the Clintons engaged in a quid-pro-quo with Boeing and the Saudis. This is somehow more relevant to the election than the fact that Trump is a monster who would let Paul Ryan render poor people into turtle wax. I see this kind of missing-the-forest-for-the-trees thinking among my left-wing friends. It's difficult for me to get on board with them, even when I think they're correct (I usually think they're correct).

I'll be blunt with you - none of these left-wing criticisms of Hillary have much impact on me personally because I don't care as much about it as I do other things. Whatever her ethics problems, or perceived ethics problems, I'm quite confident that she'll protect healthcare for millions of poor black and brown people, much as I'm confident that she'll defend the voting rights for poor black and brown people. I am equally confident that a Trump Presidency with a Ryan congressional leadership would turn this country into a Randian dystopia that I am not prepared to accept.

This election is zero-sum, and limited to two candidates. Since the Left has no candidate (apart from whatever unserious homeopath the Greens trot out every four years), it's the Democrats for me. And well intentioned (Or not (hello Julian Assange)) leftwingers who attack Clinton on the foundation stuff, which is mostly baseless so far, isn't productive for the Left or for poor people in this country. Until the Left becomes a serious force in American politics, I personally won't give a shit about any of Clinton's alleged ethics lapses.

[Elheru Aran]

American fundraising is basically a matter of just backing the winning horse and hoping that they'll do you a few favors once they're in office. About the only exception to this is the gun people, and as long as Democrats get on their knees for them, they'll fund even them.

EDIT: This is part of why Bernie's fundraising was exceptional-- a LOT of it was *not* from corporate, business, whatever rich donors; it was from individuals, and he still managed to make some serious bank. It wasn't about the amount though as much as it was the sheer success he had in courting individual private donations.

[eyl]

And this:
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundati ... nt-1934187

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

This has a direct relation to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Ara ... n_in_Yemen
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 02312.html

But sure, there's no evidence for any morally questionable actions - actions, Carl, not intentions, not speeches - by Clinton.

Hasn't the size of arms sale packages to Saudi Arabia been trending steadily upwards over the yeras? And AFAIK State is hardly the only department authorizing large foreign arms sales - I'm pretty sure at a minimum it also goes through the DOD and Congress, probably other Departments as well (and foten enough the president)...

[Ziggy Stardust]

Which flaws were raised by Simon and others? Like, well, invasion sure has a crappy result but so does the actual civil war as it turned out? What the hell is that supposed to prove, that intervention a good thing?

Nobody ever said intervention was a good thing. Why do I have to do your job for you? Here, I'll quote Simon's post directly, here, since you absolutely refuse to read this thread yourself:

To me, the implication of all this is that intervening in Syria back in 2011 or so might have been a good idea, or a bad idea. We're debating it even on this forum, which is generally not all that jingoist, and which is generally respectful of the idea that foreign countries have actual rights and should not be casually invaded for no reason.

The existence of this controversy suggests that people (who aren't lunatics) can reasonably disagree about whether US intervention in 2011 would have been a good idea. On the one hand, such interventions generally go badly. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine how things could be much worse than they ended up being anyway.

That means we can't claim Clinton was some kind of visionary because she wanted to intervene in Syria. But it also means we can't claim she's automatically a war-mongering madwoman for wanting that. Based on the evidence, saying "we should intervene in Syria" in 2011 might have been the right call to make.

Similar arguments can be made regarding some of Clinton's other stances. For example, the 'surge' in Iraq was intended to restore some measure of peace and civil order in Iraq, by putting greater numbers of troops into Iraq, when the Bush administration had previously sent totally inadequate manpower. It may not have worked as well as planned, but reinforcing the army in Iraq to allow them to restore order was not necessarily a bad idea.

Given that "end the war overnight" was not an option actually on the table, the surge was not necessarily a mistake, even if the war itself was.

We could go on like this. My basic point is that while Clinton has a history of supporting 'military' causes, this does not in and of itself make her a villain, or someone likely to start major wars that aren't needed in light of the international situation.

Nobody said intervention is definitely, always, or even necessarily a good thing, but simply that there is ambiguity on the issue vis-a-vis Syria specifically would have improved the situation relative to now. It is possible to think it would have made things worse based on what happened in Iraq, but it is also possible to think that the situation now is so bad that previous intervention may have been the lesser evil. There is no definitive answer, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what the counter-factual might have been given the intervention. That's why using the support of intervention in Syria specifically (note, again, JUST THIS SPECIFIC INTERVENTION, not all interventions in general ... this does not, for example, reflect on or absolve Hillary's support of the Iraq invasion, because this is a different situation that I am treating independently) isn't some incontrovertible proof that Hillary is a warmongering maniac or is more hawkish than candidate X, because the issue is ambiguous enough that there is room for a community of generally intelligent individuals like us to see both sides of the issue.

Your only argument was "but the Republicans also supported intervention". That may very well be true, but how does this absolve Clinton? And the most important part - why aren't defense contractors pouring money into Republican coffers, as they usually did before?

I never said it absolved Clinton. Seriously, man, are you just not reading my posts? Maybe I'm just communicating this worse than I intended, but I feel like I've had to repeat myself multiple times, here. There is a big difference between saying that Republicans supporting intervention absolves Clinton of it (it does not), and saying that it is hypocritical to ONLY criticize Hillary for it IN THE CONTEXT OF CHOOSING WHO TO VOTE FOR. Unless you can prove incontrovertibly that Hillary is qualitatively worse on this issue, it is idiotic to claim that she is more guilty than the Republicans. Because that's what this thread about: the election, and the RELATIVE merits.

And it is a very, very difficult thing to prove incontrovertibly. As noted above, the intervention of Syria in-and-of-itself is too ambiguous (and, further, the Republicans also supported it, so this clearly doesn't make Hillary worse than them). The situation with defense contractors is, I think stronger evidence for your argument. Though, without more corroboratory evidence it also is not, I don't think, overwhelming. Is there any historical evidence that presidents with strong ties to defense contractors prior to or during their administration were more likely to start a war? Is there any evidence that defense contractors actively lobby politicians to start wars? Is there any evidence the reason defense contractors support Hillary is specifically because they think she will start a war, as opposed to simply reading the political winds and believing it is more beneficial for their future contracts to support the candidate still favored to win?

[K. A. Pital]

I find the Syrian issue far from "ambigious" as I have quoted studies that show - on the average, interventions prolong and worsen civil conflicts.

In fact, it would be false to say there was no intervention, as the bombing campaign and the invasion of Gulf theocracy-sponsored ISIS and Al-Nusra mercs, and the intervention by Russia, shows quite clearly.

So Simon's point rests on only a suggestion that more intervention could potentially be better in this case. But as it is impossible to explore just this isolated case in a hypothetical timeline, we are only left with general rules. Which I have demonstrated quite sufficiently. History shows - once again, on the average, so we can only take the general trend as advice - that meddling prolongs warfare and suffering.

As for evidence that stronger ties to defense contractors increase the likelihood of war, I should explore this in detail before I answer.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I find the Syrian issue far from "ambigious" as I have quoted studies that show - on the average, interventions prolong and worsen civil conflicts.

In fact, it would be false to say there was no intervention, as the bombing campaign and the invasion of Gulf theocracy-sponsored ISIS and Al-Nusra mercs, and the intervention by Russia, shows quite clearly.

So Simon's point rests on only a suggestion that more intervention could potentially be better in this case. But as it is impossible to explore just this isolated case in a hypothetical timeline, we are only left with general rules. Which I have demonstrated quite sufficiently. History shows - once again, on the average, so we can only take the general trend as advice - that meddling prolongs warfare and suffering.

As for evidence that stronger ties to defense contractors increase the likelihood of war, I should explore this in detail before I answer.

You are missing the point of Simons post in entirety, I think. His central argument is that people who are of sound mind and good conscience can disagree with respect to the utility of early intervention in Syria, precisely because general tendencies have exceptions and it is very difficult to know when you have found one.

If you want to make the claim that someone's position is motivated by something other than a moral calculation, that is something else entirely.

[K. A. Pital]

People can disagree with the general tendency, sure.

I just think that its an even weaker argument to say that because people disagree whether intervention could've been a good or bad solution, this in and of itself does not make a politician who generally supports interventions a villain.

I am pretty sure that George Bush Jr is a politician who generally supports and has supported interventions. How, he even carried out some of these plans.

Let us imagine that the invasion of Iraq never happened. Would people be debating it in "what-if" terms and suggesting it could have been a good thing? Absolutely. Even on this forum. I mean, even after half a million dead and a colossal pan-Middle Eastern bloodbath people are still debating, on this board inclusive, whether the invasion of Iraq was a good decision. Sure, proponents of this invasion are few, but they are not all universally dumb, right?

I mean, come on. Could we not have the same discussion about Bush, had he not invaded Iraq back then (maybe because he failed to get enough support or something)? I can very well imagine that, and the very same arguments being applied to his re-election: his support of military causes and internvetion does not automatically make him a villain.

In my book the standards should be a bit more strict. When does a politician like Cheney become a villain? When does Clinton?

We are left trying to judge intentions precisely because it is only a hypothetical scenario and so far, Clinton has not been able to get enough power to actually do something like starting a war on her own or just her and a close circle of advisors.

[Alyrium Denryle]

People can disagree with the general tendency, sure.

I just think that its an even weaker argument to say that because people disagree whether intervention could've been a good or bad solution, this in and of itself does not make a politician who generally supports interventions a villain.

Well, honestly it depends on the starting conditions and their reasoning. If someone never meets a war they dont like because they become erect at the sight of missiles (like Shep), that is a problem. On the other hand if someone sees horrible horrible things and wants to stop them, it might make them wrong (again, not taking a position with any particular conflict here) but it does not make them a terrible person or even necessarily a person with bad judgement. Until someone is in the situation room with the joint chiefs of staff, we'll never really know that their judgement will be like.

There have been plenty of conflicts in my own lifetime that, were I president, I would have seriously considered bringing the joint chiefs into a room and asking them to draw up a plan to intervene on humanitarian grounds. I might not have put all or any of them into practice, but I would have at least considered my options.

Rwanda, Bosnia, the Sudan, the bad years of west africa, etc. No national interest need apply, just the horror of genocide/mowing down civilians that makes my conscience want to stop it.

Let us imagine that the invasion of Iraq never happened. Would people be debating it in "what-if" terms and suggesting it could have been a good thing? Absolutely. Even on this forum. I mean, even after half a million dead and a colossal pan-Middle Eastern bloodbath people are still debating, on this board inclusive, whether the invasion of Iraq was a good decision. Sure, proponents of this invasion are few, but they are not all universally dumb, right?

I mean, come on. Could we not have the same discussion about Bush, had he not invaded Iraq back then (maybe because he failed to get enough support or something)? I can very well imagine that, and the very same arguments being applied to his re-election: his support of military causes and internvetion does not automatically make him a villain.

Well, imagine the situation in Iraq was something other than a personal vendetta. Imagine for a moment that Saddam got a bug up his ass about the existence of Kurds and decided to attempt a genocide.

That is a much better analogy for Syria as a counter-factual. Knocking over a stable country ruled by a despot is not a good idea so long as the despot keeps his crimes against humanity to a small scale and stays within his borders, because ethically speaking (keep in mind, I am more a utilitarian than anything else here) the cost-benefit analysis is measured in human lives and well-being. There is no way you practice "regime change" under that set of conditions where the benefit is larger than the cost. Large scale crimes against humanity change that considerably.

Leaving aside the fact of course that the war in Iraq was also executed in a mindbogglingly incompetent way. Also keeping in mind that Bush and Cheney actively deceived congress as well. I am not going to lay moral blame on Clinton for being deceived.

In my book the standards should be a bit more strict. When does a politician like Cheney become a villain? When does Clinton?

A politician becomes a villain if one of the following conditions is not met

1) The military adventure in question is being performed to defend your country or a non-aggressor state from foreign invasion, particularly if allied with the aggrieved state. Example: If Estonia invaded Latvia tomorrow, someone championing the defense of Latvia would not be a terrible person for doing so. Yes, I am picking countries where the prospect of this is ridiculous in order to avoid larger geopolitical discussions that would be brought in if I picked China trying to annex the Philippines or something)

2) Internal conflict within a country is so bad that a credible argument can be made that a military adventure conducted properly can save more lives than it takes directly and indirectly. Example: If Rwanda somehow manages to degenerate into Hutus vs Tutsis 2 Machete Boogaloo a politician championing intervention in a genocide would not be a terrible person for doing so.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, imagine the situation in Iraq was something other than a personal vendetta. Imagine for a moment that Saddam got a bug up his ass about the existence of Kurds and decided to attempt a genocide.

That is a much better analogy for Syria as a counter-factual. Knocking over a stable country ruled by a despot is not a good idea so long as the despot keeps his crimes against humanity to a small scale and stays within his borders, because ethically speaking (keep in mind, I am more a utilitarian than anything else here) the cost-benefit analysis is measured in human lives and well-being. There is no way you practice "regime change" under that set of conditions where the benefit is larger than the cost. Large scale crimes against humanity change that considerably.

Leaving aside the fact of course that the war in Iraq was also executed in a mindbogglingly incompetent way. Also keeping in mind that Bush and Cheney actively deceived congress as well. I am not going to lay moral blame on Clinton for being deceived.

Truth be told, while I probably wouldn't support it regardless, because we simply can't go around overthrowing every bad dictator and it would do a lot of harm to try, my objections to the 2003 war in Iraq have less to do with any innate objection to the intervention than with how it was sold dishonestly and executed incompetently.

I'd be a lot more forgiving if Bush and company had simply said "Saddam is a horrible, mass-murdering tyrant, we should have taken him out in the Gulf War, we're going to correct that mistake", and then come up with a good plan to do it.

But they didn't, because they were as corrupt as they were criminal incompetent.

[Simon_Jester]

What it comes down to is that when judging the merits of politicians, "do they ever support wars" is not a good test of whether they will make good or bad national leaders.

A politician who favors nearly every war may have very bad judgment and lack the ability to 'pick their battles,' either literally or metaphorically. On the other hand, they may simply think it is very important to not allow civilizations to dissolve into massacre and chaos, which is not necessarily such a bad thing.

A politician who opposes every war may be a very humane person, which is a good thing. But then, they may also one who likes to promote ideology over the realities experienced by people at 'ground level.' That's not a good thing.

[K. A. Pital]

There have been plenty of conflicts in my own lifetime that, were I president, I would have seriously considered bringing the joint chiefs into a room and asking them to draw up a plan to intervene on humanitarian grounds. I might not have put all or any of them into practice, but I would have at least considered my options.

Rwanda, Bosnia, the Sudan, the bad years of west africa, etc. No national interest need apply, just the horror of genocide/mowing down civilians that makes my conscience want to stop it.

I have serious doubts, given that the system selecting elite politicians / businessmen / oligarchs favors psychopaths to rise to the top, that any real professional politician would be motivated by things such as mundane empathy. Bosnia had a small death toll that is hardly comparable to most of Sub-Saharan Africa conflicts or the modern wars in the Middle East - in fact, lumping it together with Rwanda is combining events that are worlds apart.

But let me ask you something. As the Bosnian War claimed approximately 100 000 lives, and you think this justifies intervention, would you also intervene in Tajikistan after the Soviet collapse? After all, the civil war with islamists fed by support from Afghanistan's islamist militias claimed more than 60000 lives, and if we take the Central Asian republics as a whole, probably more than 100 000.

Or would you not, simply because the Western media have never painted a picture of civilian suffering there and many citizens of Western countries would be hard-pressed to find Taijikistan on the world map?

Well, imagine the situation in Iraq was something other than a personal vendetta. Imagine for a moment that Saddam got a bug up his ass about the existence of Kurds and decided to attempt a genocide.

That is a much better analogy for Syria as a counter-factual. Knocking over a stable country ruled by a despot is not a good idea so long as the despot keeps his crimes against humanity to a small scale and stays within his borders, because ethically speaking (keep in mind, I am more a utilitarian than anything else here) the cost-benefit analysis is measured in human lives and well-being. There is no way you practice "regime change" under that set of conditions where the benefit is larger than the cost. Large scale crimes against humanity change that considerably.

Leaving aside the fact of course that the war in Iraq was also executed in a mindbogglingly incompetent way. Also keeping in mind that Bush and Cheney actively deceived congress as well. I am not going to lay moral blame on Clinton for being deceived.

We would then have to disagree on that. First, I think that professional politicians are psychopaths, especially in the current generation, as the business and political elite has been selecting them on criteria that are pushing this exact type of person upwards. Second, utilitarian calculations for future military conflicts are a very good way to make an error that can lead to even more deaths. I am sure there were people who calculated the future casualties of the Iraq war to be neglible. Likewise, over 30 thousand people have been quite probably killed during an islamist uprising in Syria in the 1980s which was brutally suppressed by Hafez al-Assad, the father of Bashar al-Assad. Would it be better to intervene in the 1980s on the side of Islamists? If so, why? It sure has not been a good idea to support the islamist side in Afghanistan in the 1980s. I don't think it would be a good idea to try and meddle here too, although the casualties are huge.

A politician becomes a villain if one of the following conditions is not met

1) The military adventure in question is being performed to defend your country or a non-aggressor state from foreign invasion, particularly if allied with the aggrieved state. Example: If Estonia invaded Latvia tomorrow, someone championing the defense of Latvia would not be a terrible person for doing so. Yes, I am picking countries where the prospect of this is ridiculous in order to avoid larger geopolitical discussions that would be brought in if I picked China trying to annex the Philippines or something)

2) Internal conflict within a country is so bad that a credible argument can be made that a military adventure conducted properly can save more lives than it takes directly and indirectly. Example: If Rwanda somehow manages to degenerate into Hutus vs Tutsis 2 Machete Boogaloo a politician championing intervention in a genocide would not be a terrible person for doing so.

As (1) is usually irrelevant to the operations the US launches - it is rarely threatened or invaded, same for its allies, except the rare case of Iraq invading Kuwait probably, (2) is what's left. But (2) actually beacons every terrible person who wants to invade other countries under the pretext of humanitarian intervention.

A politician who favors nearly every war may have very bad judgment and lack the ability to 'pick their battles,' either literally or metaphorically. On the other hand, they may simply think it is very important to not allow civilizations to dissolve into massacre and chaos, which is not necessarily such a bad thing.

I am neither convinced that any of the professional political elite actually think that (I am sure that their intentions are totally dishonest and they are basically psychopaths faking empathy to get elected, to them it is just a game where they score points based on how well they can use the psychology of their subjects, to the extent they can trick them into thinking they're "like them"), nor ready to accept that a politician who has a terribly bad judgement and gets lots of people killed in wars prolonged by his meddling or started by his desire for "decisive action" is actually a good person.

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way- if they behave as though they believe these things, for functional purposes it matters little whether they're psychopaths or not.

A psychopath who chooses to support only those wars that I, who am not a psychopath, at least sympathize with supporting, is not so terribly bad compared to either a psychopath who supports all wars, or a psychopath who tries to win the affections of pacifists by rejecting wars in literally every situation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But let me ask you something. As the Bosnian War claimed approximately 100 000 lives, and you think this justifies intervention, would you also intervene in Tajikistan after the Soviet collapse? After all, the civil war with islamists fed by support from Afghanistan's islamist militias claimed more than 60000 lives, and if we take the Central Asian republics as a whole, probably more than 100 000.

Or would you not, simply because the Western media have never painted a picture of civilian suffering there and many citizens of Western countries would be hard-pressed to find Taijikistan on the world map?

I would have at least considered it were I president at the time. Probably by way of a peacekeeping operation to protect civilians and infrastructure. My knowledge of this one is fuzzy however, but my impression is that both sides in this conflict were intent on ethnically cleansing the other.

The reason I did not mention it is because I am 30. I only barely remember the fall of the Berlin Wall because my parents made a point of showing me, so things that happened immediately after the soviet collapse... I was in early primary school. I remember Bosnia and Rwanda off the top of my head.

We would then have to disagree on that. First, I think that professional politicians are psychopaths, especially in the current generation, as the business and political elite has been selecting them on criteria that are pushing this exact type of person upwards.

I am pretty sure you are in error there. Even in places where they excel (like business) sociopaths and psychopaths are over-represented, but still a small minority.

Second, utilitarian calculations for future military conflicts are a very good way to make an error that can lead to even more deaths. I am sure there were people who calculated the future casualties of the Iraq war to be neglible.

And as we have already established, their technical competence was famously poor. Invading a country cannot be done with "minimal" casualties using Shock and Awe tactics, you destroy too much infrastructure for that.

Likewise, over 30 thousand people have been quite probably killed during an islamist uprising in Syria in the 1980s which was brutally suppressed by Hafez al-Assad, the father of Bashar al-Assad. Would it be better to intervene in the 1980s on the side of Islamists? If so, why? It sure has not been a good idea to support the islamist side in Afghanistan in the 1980s. I don't think it would be a good idea to try and meddle here too, although the casualties are huge.

One can only really deal with what is in front of you, and its readily projected consequences. That one is dicey, partially I will admit because of hindsight. Thirty thousand is getting into the territory where any projected intervention is likely to kill more than that indirectly. But I dont have the options laid out before me by professionals either, so I dont know my option space.

But (2) actually beacons every terrible person who wants to invade other countries under the pretext of humanitarian intervention.

If the means and objectives are appropriate to a humanitarian intervention, then there is no way to distinguish a decent person from a stealth warmonger. At which point the distinction is moot.

[K. A. Pital]

Put this way- if they behave as though they believe these things, for functional purposes it matters little whether they're psychopaths or not.

That is a very dangerous position to take. If a person does not believe these things, then he/she would exploit the national feelings to further his/her own goals using the sympathies of the population. For example, roughly equally severe civil conflicts happen in country A and country B. The politician knows that invading country A will bring him national support (because the news report routinely on civilian suffering in country A, preparing the public opinion for his grand entrance), solidify his power in the political circles (because opponents of the invasion will become marginalized after it happens, and will have to live with it as fact) and bring him personal financial benefits (perhaps through a company entrusted with post-war reconstruction or other types of convoluted kickbacks). Country B brings him no such benefits, or perhaps even the forces poised to win there are not going to bring this politician any benefit at all, only drawbacks if he is associated with them in any way. Country A gets invaded to public applause with unpredictable consequences. Country B forgotten.

It is very easy to say there is no difference if a person is genuinely motivated by empathy or not if the actions are similar, but in fact, there is a difference. Because the motivation will always be self-interest in winning the political game, actions will not correspond to a genuine humanitarian concern. They will only look like that.

I would have at least considered it were I president at the time. Probably by way of a peacekeeping operation to protect civilians and infrastructure. My knowledge of this one is fuzzy however, but my impression is that both sides in this conflict were intent on ethnically cleansing the other.

A very dangerous proposal, if you ask me. Unlike the other ethnic cleansing territory, Yugoslavia, Tajikistan is located very close to an active nuclear power (Russia), whose forces are also still located there. It is unlikely to just accept this intervention without massively raising the risk of confrontation. Besides, the presence of totally alien armed forces in the nation are not going to win sympathies from either one or even both of the combatant parties...

Even in places where they excel (like business) sociopaths and psychopaths are over-represented, but still a small minority.

Have there ever been objective studies to determine the percentage of sociopathic and/or psychopathic individuals in political elites?

Invading a country cannot be done with "minimal" casualties using Shock and Awe tactics, you destroy too much infrastructure for that.

Most of the casualties happened afterwards due to the collapse of civil authority, the invasion itself ran more or less smoothly due to the colossal power disparity. With our knowledge today we can say it was easy to foresee this collapse and blame the invaders for not doing more. But if the political elite is so incompetent as to not be able to foresee such "obvious" things, how can they be trusted with achieving a net positive result with any armed intervention at all?

Thirty thousand is getting into the territory where any projected intervention is likely to kill more than that indirectly.

Very likely. So you say professionals should offer the options to the political decision-makers. But given the above, how can these "professionals" be trusted? And is it not easier and, in fact, smarter to use the general trend to avoid intervention?

If the means and objectives are appropriate to a humanitarian intervention, then there is no way to distinguish a decent person from a stealth warmonger. At which point the distinction is moot.

I have dealt with this point at the start of this comment. The distinction is hard to see from the outside and recognize in advance, but it does not mean automatically that it does not exist. Or that it will not have consequences.

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way- if they behave as though they believe these things, for functional purposes it matters little whether they're psychopaths or not.

That is a very dangerous position to take. If a person does not believe these things, then he/she would exploit the national feelings to further his/her own goals using the sympathies of the population. For example, roughly equally severe civil conflicts happen in country A and country B. The politician knows that invading country A will bring him national support (because the news report routinely on civilian suffering in country A, preparing the public opinion for his grand entrance), solidify his power in the political circles (because opponents of the invasion will become marginalized after it happens, and will have to live with it as fact) and bring him personal financial benefits (perhaps through a company entrusted with post-war reconstruction or other types of convoluted kickbacks). Country B brings him no such benefits, or perhaps even the forces poised to win there are not going to bring this politician any benefit at all, only drawbacks if he is associated with them in any way. Country A gets invaded to public applause with unpredictable consequences. Country B forgotten.

This is why I am talking about this in the context of examining a record over an extended time.

See, the argument is only relevant to this thread if your thesis is:

1) Hillary Clinton is a politician, therefore she is a psychopath.
2) As a psychopath, her decisions to support wars are entirely uncorrelated with ethics.
3) Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the wars she supports are ethical.

My counterargument is twofold. The first part is that (1) is unproven. You cannot feasibly prove that ALL successful politicians are psychopaths or sociopaths. Such people have their limits; they are not supermen. And it can be hard for them to remain successful for long periods of time, because they do not build loyalty the way normal humans do, and they have to use intelligence as a substitute for social instincts normal humans possess. There are obvious obstacles to psychopaths taking over the whole government.

Moreover, (3) is questionable. Clinton, and most other politicians running for high office, have a long track record of past positions that can be used as guidelines. If Clinton has a history of supporting only invasions that would be not unethical, over a period of forty years, then either she is NOT a psychopath as you claim, or she is a psychopath so skilled at mimicking a non-psychopath when it comes to 'war or peace' that she is unlikely to change her successful ways now.

And if ALL politicians are psychopaths, then it is virtually pointless to even argue about this problem in the context of a specific election. Since if all candidates running for an election are in fact psychopaths, all we can do is hope to pick the 'right' psychopath, who has chosen to mimic the 'right' kind of person and to adopt consistent practices that allow them to win the support of the 'right' people. This, after all, is the only option left to me for getting some of what I want.

This is highly relevant to the situation we face today. Because... If you tell me Clinton is a psychopath, by the broad standards I suspect you are using for psychopathy, I will consider that you may well be right for all I know. If you tell me Trump isn't such a one... I will laugh in your face and never respect you again.

I would have at least considered it were I president at the time. Probably by way of a peacekeeping operation to protect civilians and infrastructure. My knowledge of this one is fuzzy however, but my impression is that both sides in this conflict were intent on ethnically cleansing the other.

A very dangerous proposal, if you ask me. Unlike the other ethnic cleansing territory, Yugoslavia, Tajikistan is located very close to an active nuclear power (Russia), whose forces are also still located there. It is unlikely to just accept this intervention without massively raising the risk of confrontation. Besides, the presence of totally alien armed forces in the nation are not going to win sympathies from either one or even both of the combatant parties...

Which Alyrium is no doubt aware of which is why he said considered it. Also, it is unlikely that he would decide to intervene in several places at once, due to limited resources. Or that he would decide to intervene in highly risky places, because he is not an idiot.

The point remains that there are times when a decent person looks at an armed conflict and says "you know, invading this place, and compelling one or more of the factions to lay down their arms by force, would probably make things actively less bad for the common citizen..." This may not always be true, and it should be thought over very carefully. But it is not a thing that is NEVER true.

Therefore, we simply cannot use "this politician sometimes supports wars" as evidence that "this person is a maniac, or a psychopath, or some other kind of insane person who will lead us into wars." You may be more or less opposed to more or fewer wars than me, but there is a continuum here, and many places within that continuum are reasonable positions that do not disqualify anyone from public office.

Invading a country cannot be done with "minimal" casualties using Shock and Awe tactics, you destroy too much infrastructure for that.

Most of the casualties happened afterwards due to the collapse of civil authority, the invasion itself ran more or less smoothly due to the colossal power disparity. With our knowledge today we can say it was easy to foresee this collapse and blame the invaders for not doing more. But if the political elite is so incompetent as to not be able to foresee such "obvious" things, how can they be trusted with achieving a net positive result with any armed intervention at all?

This is a valid argument. It certainly justifies not trusting the Bush administration with anything important. It does not, however, generalize to all future politicians.

I will also note that your argument and Alyrium's become identical if when you say 'you destroy too much infrastructure,' we include social and political infrastructure, which is always destroyed by war no matter how the war is waged, outside of the most limited of "cabinet wars" imaginable.

Thirty thousand is getting into the territory where any projected intervention is likely to kill more than that indirectly.

Very likely. So you say professionals should offer the options to the political decision-makers. But given the above, how can these "professionals" be trusted? And is it not easier and, in fact, smarter to use the general trend to avoid intervention?

Some of the professionals are probably more trustworthy than the politicians, if as you claim nearly all politicians are psychopaths. Because being a psychopath is NOT a reliable key to success in, say, the military or academia.