Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Gandalf]

More like "with all that wealth lying around it's inevitable some bully is going to come and try to take it". Truth is, Russia is already involved in the Middle East. Don't know about China, but it wouldn't be a surprise to me if they were also already there.

Which bully is better? Damifino. They're all bad in their own way.

When you say "some bully," is that short for some other bully?

[Ralin]

Tell that to Ukraine and Tibet.

Xizang province is an inseparable part of China and has benefited greatly from decades of development and improvement thanks to the national government.

[Ralin]

Not a student of history, are you?

Yes, post-WWII the US was the top dog of imperialists, but they weren't the first and won't be the last. They only seem to be the worst because they've been the most active recently.

As I said - if the US leaves a vacuum in its wake someone will be along to fill it. Probably several contenders.

That was then, this is now. For decades American imperialism has had a level of military and economic power behind it well beyond what anyone else can bring to bear. America is no more just another powerful country with an interest in Middle Eastern oil than white people are just another ethnicity.

We've seen what America's presence in the Middle East has lead to. The first step to making that right is to end it. If the Iraqis decide to start selling more oil to China or whatever that's nothing compared to the harm that we have caused and continue to cause.

[The Romulan Republic]

As far as I can tell, Ralin's view is literally "Its evil if the West does it, and its justified if a non-westerner does it"- up to and including mass murder of civilians. Note his open endorsement of Chinese propaganda for the occupation of Tibet, and how it has "benefitted" from authoritarian Chinese occupation. Replace "China" with the "the West" and that post is classic White Man's Burden.

A lot of this reads like "someone's going to imperialise the place, it might as well be us."

As I've said before, my ultimate view is basically that we should be moving towards a unified global world in which westerners and non-westerners have an equal voice. I have serious misgivings about some US interventions, and nothing but contempt for the frequent, incompetence, dishonesty, and acceptance of civilian causalities and torture at the highest levels. But I don't think that the problem will be solved by the Middle East trading one foreign master for another. Nor do I think that the US completely disengaging from the rest of the world is the right answer, practically or morally.

We live in an interconnected, globalized world. What happens in one country will, inevitably, affect the people of other countries. The fact is that treating national sovereignty as the highest law is a poisonous and ultimately obsolete idea. And that cuts both ways. The affairs of Syria are America's business. And the affairs of America are Syria's business. The problem with that, of course, is that there is currently a gross power disparity in favour of certain countries (the US, Russia, and China, primarily), and no real effective international checks in place to prevent unscrupulous officials from abusing that power disparity. So I understand the drive towards complete non-interventionism. I just don't think it can work, nor should it be the ultimate ideal.

[Rogue 9]

Syrians and Americans are better off with America out. Tbh I don't really care about Trump's reasoning why or lack thereof (TRR feel free to take this as a chance to post a screed), since the results are good.

Screw the Kurds, amirite?

'We Will Curse Them As Traitors': Syrian Kurds React To U.S. Troop Withdrawal Plan

December 24, 20182:19 PM ET

Lama Al-Arian, Ruth Sherlock, Kamiran Sadoun

The green landscape of rural northeastern Syria is home to wild ducks and donkeys, villagers tending cattle — and U.S. military bases housing 2,200 troops. American soldiers patrol the countryside in armored vehicles and hover overhead in Black Hawk helicopters. In the Kurdish-majority area known as Rojava, towns are bursting with Christmas decorations. Holiday lights adorn almost every main street in the city of Qamishli, whose diverse population includes many Christians, and shops are selling tinsel and plastic trees.

But President Trump's sudden decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria has overshadowed most of this year's celebrations. Syrians who have made the U.S. troops feel welcome here say they are shocked and upset by the news. Some are calling it a "stab in the back."

This is the part of Syria where U.S. troops have backed up local fighters in forcing ISIS out of nearly all the nearby cities and towns they once held. The Syrians — led by Kurdish fighters — have lost thousands in the fight, and some feel their sacrifices aren't being acknowledged or repaid.

This week, NPR tried to gain access to a few of the U.S. bases but was told the American troops there are not authorized to comment. Syrian civilians working and living near the bases, though, spoke openly about how they felt — and many say they feel betrayed by Trump's decision.

Hatem Hassan, 37, runs a money exchange shop in Qamishli. He says Trump's decision hits close to home.

"If they will leave, we will curse them as traitors," he says. "The Kurds helped them to destroy ISIS. ... I have seven people from my family who were fighting ISIS and who were killed. And they were very young, not even in their 20s."

Haji Haidar, 39, is standing outside his blacksmith shop. Everyone here is angry and scared, he says.

"All the work they did together, and now they are leaving so suddenly," he says. "I don't understand it. People are afraid that they will just sell the country to someone."

The Syrian Democratic Forces, the U.S.-backed Kurdish group, says it is scrambling to put together a backup plan now. Two SDF spokesman told NPR they heard the news of the U.S. withdrawal last week the same way as everyone else: while watching television.

The SDF includes Christian fighters and commanders who may not make it home for Christmas this year, as they prepare for whatever comes next.

"At this point, we are open to all options and partnerships," Mustafa Bali, an SDF spokesman, tells NPR. "ISIS is not yet defeated and there are still many sleeper cells to take care of."

But an ISIS resurgence isn't the only — or even biggest — concern now facing residents of northeastern Syria: They mainly fear an attack from Turkey.

The stakes are especially urgent for Syria's Kurds, who make up the bulk of the population in the northeast, along the Turkish border, and have been the closest U.S. allies.

Turkey has been threatening to attack the Kurds here. It views them as terrorists because of their links to militants who stage attacks in Turkey. Turkey has criticized the U.S. for helping the Kurds shore up control of this region and has indicated it could invade as soon as U.S. forces are out.

If Turkey chooses to invade, the SDF may have to abandon fighting ISIS, Bali says.

"You can't have your forces being busy fighting ISIS while another country comes in from behind and attacks your people and forces," he says.

They're looking at contingency plans, including seeking a deal with the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad to ask its help in keeping Turkey from coming across the border. They might even seek on-the-ground protection deals with Iranian forces in Syria.

"The Syrian regime should be protecting Syria's sovereign borders," says Bali. If the regime were to come to northern Syria, he says, "On principle, we would not be against it."

[Ralin]

As far as I can tell, Ralin's view is literally "Its evil if the West does it, and its justified if a non-westerner does it"- up to and including mass murder of civilians. Note his open endorsement of Chinese propaganda for the occupation of Tibet, and how it has "benefitted" from authoritarian Chinese occupation. Replace "China" with the "the West" and that post is classic White Man's Burden.

There is no Chinese occupation of Tibet, anymore than there is an American occupation of Louisiana, Oregon or Rhode Island. But on that note…

As I've said before, my ultimate view is basically that we should be moving towards a unified global world in which westerners and non-westerners have an equal voice. I have serious misgivings about some US interventions, and nothing but contempt for the frequent, incompetence, dishonesty, and acceptance of civilian causalities and torture at the highest levels. But I don't think that the problem will be solved by the Middle East trading one foreign master for another. Nor do I think that the US completely disengaging from the rest of the world is the right answer, practically or morally.

We live in an interconnected, globalized world. What happens in one country will, inevitably, affect the people of other countries. The fact is that treating national sovereignty as the highest law is a poisonous and ultimately obsolete idea. And that cuts both ways. The affairs of Syria are America's business. And the affairs of America are Syria's business.

This is the geopolitical equivalent of saying that you don’t see race. Leaving aside the disproportionate influence countries like America have by dint of military and economic power attempts to force some sort of world government are predicated on very specific Euro-American ideas and values. It’s not a coincidence that the countries you single out as dictatorships are usually wealthy and/or powerful countries run by non-white and often formerly colonized people. When you say that it ‘cuts both ways’ you certainly don’t mean that America should comply with Chinese laws and priorities by restricting anti-government speech or regulating the internet to remove inappropriate images of Winnie the Pooh, but in any genuinely equal global government that wasn’t an empire imposed by a select few countries the Chinese government would be more than justified in demanding just that. The rest of the world does not want to live under American rule, and that will not change if that rule is exercised through the United Nations or some successor organization.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is no Chinese occupation of Tibet, anymore than there is an American occupation of Louisiana, Oregon or Rhode Island. But on that note…

Well, you could argue that there is an American occupation of pretty much the entire country, in that its stolen native land. So thanks for proving my point. Of course, as we know, occupations are only wrong if Westerners do it.

This is the geopolitical equivalent of saying that you don’t see race. Leaving aside the disproportionate influence countries like America have by dint of military and economic power attempts to force some sort of world government are predicated on very specific Euro-American ideas and values. It’s not a coincidence that the countries you single out as dictatorships are usually wealthy and/or powerful countries run by non-white and often formerly colonized people. When you say that it ‘cuts both ways’ you certainly don’t mean that America should comply with Chinese laws and priorities by restricting anti-government speech or regulating the internet to remove inappropriate images of Winnie the Pooh, but in any genuinely equal global government that wasn’t an empire imposed by a select few countries the Chinese government would be more than justified in demanding just that. The rest of the world does not want to live under American rule, and that will not change if that rule is exercised through the United Nations or some successor organization.

So don't refute my arguments, just keep calling me a racist because apparently its okay to lie and ad hominem as a debating tactic on this board now (at least as long as I'm the target). Also deliberately misrepresent my arguments as advocating American global rule, despite the fact that I explicitly advocate a global government in which all regions and populations receive fair representation.

I'm also curious as to how you feel that in a global government, China would be justified in unilaterally imposing its will on the rest of the world. China's population in such a hypothetical would outnumber any other country's, and thus be entitled to more representation, but it would be by no means a majority, nor would China's government be entitled to unilaterally dictate to the world any more than America is (but I forget- they're against the West, so therefore justified in anything they do ).

Jesus Christ, if you hadn't been on this board so long, I would genuinely think that your account is a sock-puppet for the Chinese government.


Oh, by the way, if the UN is just a front for American rule (hint: it isn't, and you are sounding like a frothing at the mouth conspiracy theorist), then its a damned ineffective one.

Edit: I will also note that neither democracy nor world government are exclusively "Euro-American" ideas.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know what? I think I'm going to walk away from this one. Call it a concession if you want to. I've made my case, and continuing with this argument is only going to drive my blood pressure higher until I say something very unfortunate.

[AniThyng]

The only way in which all populations can receive fair representation is if we have a system where people can choose under what kind of regime or laws they would like to live under because many cultures and Nations have mutually contradictory values and laws that one cannot reconcile at a global level. The whole inane debate over ratifying the UN's ICERD in my country and the persistent power of the local Islamist party is lesson enough for me at the local level.

[The Romulan Republic]

The only way in which all populations can receive fair representation is if we have a system where people can choose under what kind of regime or laws they would like to live under because many cultures and Nations have mutually contradictory values and laws that one cannot reconcile at a global level.

Ultimately its the same problems as you have in any multi-cultural country, only on a larger scale. Presumably you would have certain matters left in the hands of local authorities, and others regulated globally, with what those regulations are being determined by the representatives of the various regions/member states. Where exactly you drew the line in terms of each level of government's authority would, of course, be the contentious part.

[mr friendly guy]

Here is the thing about replacing one world power for another, it depends how the other power will act to achieve their geopolitical goals.

Christopher Hitchens would use a thought experiment on atheists and theists, he would state, can you name one good thing a theist would do which an atheist would not. Can't. Now can you name a bad thing a theist has done, which an atheist will also do.

So here is the geopolitical equivalent. If China was as powerful as the US, would it invade Iraq to get the oil, using the false claim of WMDs. I think we know the answer to that, its no. Because they already got hold of Iraqi oil. The same way they got hold of other ME oil. Buying it. And not just with cash. They offer big projects etc.

Now you could argue, the deal is still more in favour of China (even though China didn't force the other side to sign a deal), but one must be a Western apologist to argue that is just as worse than what the US did in Iraq. Or Iran. Both of which involved overthrowing governments, and in the Iran case, a democratically elected one to. This is not only a case of whataboutism, its theoretical whataboutism because China hasn't invaded any ME nation in its history.

China seems to be able to achieve such a geopolitical goal without needing to go in with a botch invasion leading to hundreds of thousands dead. So yeah, it is worse when the US does it. Objectively so.

[Broomstick]

That ignores the fact that China has enormous economic clout compared to some of the people they buy from, leading to banana-republic situations. China also subordinates the individual to the collective, which has resulted in some pretty nasty situations where individuals have woken up one more to find bulldozers destroying their small farms because some government official sold their homes out from under them. I'll also point out that China does horrific things to their own environment in the name of economic development, much less anyone else's.

If China hasn't been as abusive as other powers in the recent past it's because they haven't had such power in the recent past.

Russia... well, which direction were people jumping the Berlin Wall, again? You might argue that that was the USSR, not Russia, but in fact Russia was the big power in the USSR and the current Russian nation is run by people that used to be significant powers in the USSR. Russia's current involvement with Syria does not give me hope that they would be any more kind if they were in charge.

At this moment you can argue that the US is the worst bully on the block, but your notion that anyone else would be better just doesn't make sense to me. It's that whole notion that power corrupts and great power corrupts greatly.

Which is not an argument for US hegemony - the ideal state would be for nations to stand as true equals without overlords and vassals. I just don't see it happening in the current world.

[Broomstick]

China seems to be able to achieve such a geopolitical goal without needing to go in with a botch invasion leading to hundreds of thousands dead. So yeah, it is worse when the US does it. Objectively so.

Yeah, China just goes in, strips away the resources it wants via vastly greater economic clout, then leaves behind a toxic wasteland. So, yay freedom and political self-determination but too bad about the messed up kids and contaminated land, water, air and food. They do that to their own - do you seriously think they'll treat foreign countries even as well as that?

[K. A. Pital]

The US has also poisoned its own land during industrialization, and poisoned South East Asia on purpose with Agent Orange.

Which industrial society has not poisoned the land when industrializing, anyway?

Freedom is not abstract. Nations occupied by the US are also strip-mined, polluted and left to rot, or worse. We are not seriously thinking the US went into Afhanistan and Iraq to recreate the garden of Eden there?

[mr friendly guy]

That ignores the fact that China has enormous economic clout compared to some of the people they buy from, leading to banana-republic situations.

If you mean China gets more benefit from the deal, it depends, but even if it does, so what? If they can't get a better deal than what China is offering, we have to ask why. Chances are, its not China's fault. It doesn't necessarily mean its the fault of those countries either, for example Angola was just coming out of a war when Chinese investment came in, so it wasn't attractive to Western investment.

However my main point is, its better for you to sell me something even if its at lower prices that what you would like, compared to someone else coming in, murdering your family and taking it anyway. There really isn't any comparison, and saying they are just as bad is not only poor argumentation, its an excuse used by the West to justify their imperialism. If we didn't do it, someone else will and they will be worse I say.

China also subordinates the individual to the collective, which has resulted in some pretty nasty situations where individuals have woken up one more to find bulldozers destroying their small farms because some government official sold their homes out from under them. I'll also point out that China does horrific things to their own environment in the name of economic development, much less anyone else's.

In their own country sure. Not in the ME, nor even in their immediate neighbourhood. When was the last time China actually said <insert leader of this country> must go. Even ones hostile to it like the previous Philippine leader. Now how many times has the US said that and actually acted on it, with varying degrees of success. It seems its much easier to cross the US red line than China's.

If China hasn't been as abusive as other powers in the recent past it's because they haven't had such power in the recent past.

Its possible, but ultimately this is just an unfalsifiable statement. Its no different than a robber saying, if I didn't steal from you, someone else will, only I had better opportunity so it ended up being me.

Russia... well, which direction were people jumping the Berlin Wall, again? You might argue that that was the USSR, not Russia, but in fact Russia was the big power in the USSR and the current Russian nation is run by people that used to be significant powers in the USSR. Russia's current involvement with Syria does not give me hope that they would be any more kind if they were in charge.

While Putin might play the "great game" well, the more likely peer competitor to the US is China. I doubt any nation would be "in charge" per se, but some will have greater influence than others and I don't see Russia coming anywhere close to being "in charge."

At this moment you can argue that the US is the worst bully on the block, but your notion that anyone else would be better just doesn't make sense to me. It's that whole notion that power corrupts and great power corrupts greatly.

The nearest peer competitor is China, so lets compare them. You might have heard people say, the US wages war, China builds things, or something to that effect. What China is known for in the developing world, is building big infrastructure projects. Its kind of their calling card. Even if I give you that they aren't worth bang for their buck, its still better objectively than someone coming in, murdering their way through their country and leaving rubble and people bereft of running water and electricity.

Even if great power corrupts greatly, it doesn't necessarily make your brains turn to mush. They still have to calculate the cost vs benefits of their actions. And its much cheaper to wave money around to get what you want, than wave bombs around. It most probably cheaper for the US as well, but then you guys have a big military industrial complex that needs to be fed.

Which is not an argument for US hegemony - the ideal state would be for nations to stand as true equals without overlords and vassals. I just don't see it happening in the current world.

True, but as you noted, unlikely to happen.

Yeah, China just goes in, strips away the resources it wants via vastly greater economic clout, then leaves behind a toxic wasteland. So, yay freedom and political self-determination but too bad about the messed up kids and contaminated land, water, air and food. They do that to their own - do you seriously think they'll treat foreign countries even as well as that?

I could point out that all industrialising nations pollute, the US had rivers on fire for example until it cleaned up its act. We are both old enough to remember the pollution stories of Los Angeles in the 80s right?

As noted in a previous thread, the pollution has actually improved in China. This isn't magical or benign, its actually known as the Kuznets environmental curve, when a country eventually improves its pollution, because environmental measures surpass the damage from GDP growth when GDP growth eventually slows down as a country reaches a higher GDP/capita. This is a reflection of industrialisation, rather than particularly weak attitudes towards environmentalism in one country vs the other. I am not saying different attitudes between countries don't contribute to environmental problems, but its a much small factor than the kuznet curve.

I could also point out your articles on air pollution (at least the ones that open for me) are largely pre 2014, when China starting clamping down on pollution with its "war on pollution".
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upsh ... lives.html
As you can see, they're winning with air pollution, its going to take time to reverse with water as well especially since a new plan was only introduced this year.

This is no different to how the US cleaned up its rivers on fire or the pollution in Los Angeles.

But the most important point is, this is what china does in its own country. Chinese companies have to follow the law of the country they are working in. If a country has stricter environmental laws, then Chinese companies have to follow them or suffer the legal ramifications like everyone else. Its not like they're going to invade those countries and bomb the shit out of it and then change the country to China mark 2.0. That seems to be a tactic the US loves. Well Russia loves it too.

[Broomstick]

The US has also poisoned its own land during industrialization, and poisoned South East Asia on purpose with Agent Orange.

Which industrial society has not poisoned the land when industrializing, anyway?

None.

But right now China is in the peak of that cycle while other nations like the US and many of those in Europe have come out the other side of that phase and both making some attempt to do less damage and to remedy the damage already done. Russia, on the other hand... impossible to say, because information can be so hard to come by. Certainly, USSR/Russia seems to have left much more radioactive pollution, or greater polluted areas than anyone else. I don't think they're still being that sloppy... but, again, information can be hard to come by.

Freedom is not abstract. Nations occupied by the US are also strip-mined, polluted and left to rot, or worse. We are not seriously thinking the US went into Afhanistan and Iraq to recreate the garden of Eden there?

Certainly not.

But the US didn't start it's Middle Eastern involvement as a conqueror, more as an investor and purchaser of raw materials. When the British Empire fell the US stepped into the power vacuum in that region and nearly a century later is now the bad guy imperialist. I don't see where Russia or China or anyone else is going to do any better because the Middle East has been a quagmire of squabbles, feuds, and wars for thousands of years. Empires come and go but conflict remains.

If the US pulls out of the Middle East entirely two things will happen: Israel is going to be attacked, and every wanna be overlord is going to try to carve out territory for himself. Doing business there will be impossible. If Russia and China want to be involved (and they do, because of all that lovely, lovely petroleum) they'll have to bring troops just to protect their merchants and outposts, and that's going to lead to conflict with the natives, and a couple decades down the line we'll be talking about how imperialist they are and how they need to get out of the Middle East.

[AniThyng]

The only way in which all populations can receive fair representation is if we have a system where people can choose under what kind of regime or laws they would like to live under because many cultures and Nations have mutually contradictory values and laws that one cannot reconcile at a global level.

Ultimately its the same problems as you have in any multi-cultural country, only on a larger scale. Presumably you would have certain matters left in the hands of local authorities, and others regulated globally, with what those regulations are being determined by the representatives of the various regions/member states. Where exactly you drew the line in terms of each level of government's authority would, of course, be the contentious part.

Yeah and that's the issue. This is far from a solved problem, even in Canada (Quebec, *cough*, which enjoys significant cultural autonomy) and the US, let alone the EU ( see: all the -xits.) Heck, see Catalonia. Many well integrated Nations arrived at that stage though processes that would easily be called cultural imperialism if applied outside thier borders. (See: French suppression of regionalism, see also China re: sinicization within its borders) . For these reasons alone global government can reasonably only apply any global standards by watering them down to the point of empty platitude or hewing to a particular ideology ("western liberalism") and then leading to the very cultural imperialism in question here.

[Xisiqomelir]

Syrians and Americans are better off with America out. Tbh I don't really care about Trump's reasoning why or lack thereof (TRR feel free to take this as a chance to post a screed), since the results are good.

Screw the Kurds, amirite?

A return to pre-2011 norms, with Erdy not-so-secretly colluding with, paying off and arming the Barzanis will be an improvement on their current lot.

[K. A. Pital]

None.

But right now China is in the peak of that cycle while other nations like the US and many of those in Europe have come out the other side of that phase and both making some attempt to do less damage and to remedy the damage already done.

On the inside only. Outside, the US and Europe are outsourcing pollution, they are polluting the entire world to keep their insides clean. China is producing to keep Europe and the US clothed and entertained, so its pollution is not only its own fault either.

[Broomstick]

That's a two-pronged problem:

1) Outside the industrialized and "post-industrialized" world local laws regarding pollution range from lax to non-existent and

2) Even where they exist, they are frequently not effectively enforced.

Hey, I don't claim to have a good solution for any of this.

[SCRawl]

He's basically openly rooting for the Russian/Chinese intervention in the Middle East, thus putting the lie to any claim that he is sincerely anti-Imperialist, as opposed to just anti-American

No. I’m rooting for an end to imperialism in the Middle East by removing the evil military machine that destroyed Iraq, started the ball rolling ISIS and has generally spent decades raping the region for fun and profit.

(I will also note that for all its crimes, America has often been fairly restrained in its use of overwhelming force, by the standards of historical conquering empires- I very much doubt whether Russia and China will be so limited in how they are willing to use the force at their disposal).

Ahaha, seriously? Hey TRR, quick question: how many wars has China started in the past half century or so? How many countries? How many Chinese military bases are there outside of China?

I also challenge the implication that Afghanistan was a war of aggression. What, was America in Ralin's view supposed to just accept the murder of 3,000 people (mostly civilians) on 9/11 as its just desserts?

Absolutely. There was nothing military about 9/11. It was a crime committed by private individuals (most of them from Saudi Arabia), not the Afghan military. It should have been handled by law enforcement and if they couldn’t apprehend the people responsible then the only moral thing to do would be not starting an evil decades-long forever war against a country that didn’t stand a chance in hell of ever attacking or invading us you racist little shit!

The fact is that no country in history who had the means to respond to such an attack with force would fail to do so.

That’s a lie. Many countries have suffered mass murders, even murders committed by foreigners, without immediately responding by invading an unrelated country as punishment.

That's not imperialism- that's self-defence.

Liar. Please TRR, show us the secret Afghan 747 training facilities or whatever that you think had to be destroyed before they could be used to attack America. Explain exactly what threat you think was in Afghanistan that the US military needed (and still needs) to stop?

There is no excuse for the subsequent mismanaging and disregard for civilian lives in the war in Afghanistan, but the only way you can call it a war of aggression is if you believe that 9/11 was a false-flag operation. Is that the argument that Ralin wishes to make?

You just don’t get it, do you? There was no ‘subsequent mismanaging’ because there was no good and correct way to manage a war of revenge like America’s rape of Afghanistan. The war was an atrocity start to finish and there is no amount of wise and restrained leadership that could have made it anything else. You cannot be George W Bush Only Good when you use the world’s most powerful military machine to crush other countries.

I've now had a look at TRR's report, and the use of the terms "lie" and "liar" do not seem justified to me. Ralin, you will either back up these claims or retract them with an apology.

[Ralin]

I've now had a look at TRR's report, and the use of the terms "lie" and "liar" do not seem justified to me. Ralin, you will either back up these claims or retract them with an apology.

Afghanistan was a relatively poor country without the military strength or industrial base to launch or sustain any sort of offensive war against the United States. The idea that the presence of a criminal organization like Al-Qaeda there represented some sort of threat to the United States that required an invasion in the name of 'self-defense' is a lie, and a disgusting one.

Are you asking for a list of countries that haven’t launched invasions of other countries when foreigners (from other countries) committed a murder within their borders? Because that would be a grab bag.

[Broomstick]

If the Taliban had turned over Osama bin Laden the US might not have invaded Afghanistan at all... but they refused to do so. For whatever reason, they were harboring a guy who masterminded a hit on the world's only remaining superpower. The notion that that would be ignored is ludicrous.

I will agree that the excursion into Iraq was needless and unjustified - indeed, I said so at the time. But Afghanistan? Going in to get the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks was reasonable. Do stuff beyond that? Debatable. But your notion that the US should have rolled over and taken the punch with 3,000 dead, acres of Manhattan real estate leveled, and a hole punched in the Pentagon is just plain out-and-out stupid.

[SCRawl]

I've now had a look at TRR's report, and the use of the terms "lie" and "liar" do not seem justified to me. Ralin, you will either back up these claims or retract them with an apology.

Afghanistan was a relatively poor country without the military strength or industrial base to launch or sustain any sort of offensive war against the United States. The idea that the presence of a criminal organization like Al-Qaeda there represented some sort of threat to the United States that required an invasion in the name of 'self-defense' is a lie, and a disgusting one.

Are you asking for a list of countries that haven’t launched invasions of other countries when foreigners (from other countries) committed a murder within their borders? Because that would be a grab bag.

If you feel that a lie was told, you have to demonstrate that the poster knew or should have known that the thing told could not possibly have been true. For example, if I tell you that my father said that he used to have a paper route when he was a kid, and did it so that he could afford a new bike, if you call me a liar then you are asserting that I know better than that or I ought to know better and said something untrue on purpose. More relevantly here, to call TRR a liar asserts that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban did not represent a threat to the U.S., and that TRR knew or should have known this. It's an opinion, and for this reason I don't believe that the facts support your assertion, which is why I am requiring action on your part.

As an aside, a better way to go would be to say that the thing a poster said wasn't true, instead of going with "you're a liar". If you do the latter in real life, that could be actionable.

[Ralin]

Fine, point conceded. TRR wasn't lying.