$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 99.18

6,303 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
39.7% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: What Trump needs to hear on foreign policy rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
A bit long but you can put it on in the background or podcast it in your car. Liberals will love this stuff just as much as the libertarians.

He talks about deescalating military intervention around the globe with a lot of detail. Yemen, Syria, Russia, Pakistan, Africa, Drones in general, and more. Equal criticism of Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and Obama. The sort of criticism of Obama that liberals get behind (drone strikes) though so don't be afraid. He even calls the Iran deal a great deal.

Skip the first 2:15 of commercial

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tom-woods-show/id716...
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-781-what-trump-needs-to-hear-...

Quote:
Some of Trump’s instincts are noninterventionist. Since there’s a good chance he’ll surround himself with interventionists anyway, here’s what he ought to hear about various hotspots around the world, and why nonintervention is the way to go every time.

About the Guest
Scott Horton, managing director of the Libertarian Institute, is the host of Antiwar Radio on KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles, and Opinion Editor of Antiwar.com. The Scott Horton Show features daily interviews on foreign policy from a libertarian perspective.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Alleman
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is awesome. Thanks for sharing. I'm sick and tired of 'Merica being the police force of the world. Spend all that money on domestic programs.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Burlington
Vermont
flag msg tools
Daddys_Home wrote:
This is awesome. Thanks for sharing. I'm sick and tired of 'Merica being the police force of the world. Spend all that money on domestic programs.

Most of that money IS spend domestically. Or where do you think the US buys all those fighter planes, ships, tomahawks, drones, smart bombs, bullets, etc.? Not even talking about the salaries going to AMERICAN soldiers.

(We could certainly spend that money more productively than using it to kill other people and destroy their property but that has nothing to do with spending it "here" versus "there".)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Alleman
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wasn't talking about if we spend it here or there. I was saying instead of giving money to the military industrial complex, we spend that money on domestic programs.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The neocons are circling... we can't expect much from Trump. He won his nomination being the only one condemning Iraq and saber-rattling with Russia, so there is a faint glimmer of hope.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
Faint. Very faint. Each party has its own set of interventionists. We're either there to spread democracy or stability. Either way, we're there.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Burlington
Vermont
flag msg tools
Daddys_Home wrote:
Wasn't talking about if we spend it here or there. I was saying instead of giving money to the military industrial complex, we spend that money on domestic programs.

Sorry if I misunderstood you but the word "programs" does not mean much. The F35 was developed through the "Joint Strike Fighter Program".
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/lakehurst/home.cfm?Content...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
odie73 wrote:
Daddys_Home wrote:
Wasn't talking about if we spend it here or there. I was saying instead of giving money to the military industrial complex, we spend that money on domestic programs.

Sorry if I misunderstood you but the word "programs" does not mean much. The F35 was developed through the "Joint Strike Fighter Program".
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/lakehurst/home.cfm?Content...

By domestic programs he means programs that improve the well being of Americans in the United States. Examples: infrastructure programs, social welfare programs, the space program, even military defense programs.

I might differ with liberals here and say we don't really need the government to do either, but I'd favor domestic programs over foreign military programs.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Burlington
Vermont
flag msg tools
ironcates wrote:
odie73 wrote:
Daddys_Home wrote:
Wasn't talking about if we spend it here or there. I was saying instead of giving money to the military industrial complex, we spend that money on domestic programs.

Sorry if I misunderstood you but the word "programs" does not mean much. The F35 was developed through the "Joint Strike Fighter Program".
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/lakehurst/home.cfm?Content...

By domestic programs he means programs that improve the well being of Americans in the United States. Examples: infrastructure programs, social welfare programs, the space program, even military defense programs.

I might differ with liberals here and say we don't really need the government to do either, but I'd favor domestic programs over foreign military programs.

I get that. I am simply pointing out that the term "domestic programs" is misleading and does not exclude military spending. And the employees and shareholders of Lockheed Martin would certainly argue that the F35 program improved their well-being.

Apparently, it is also hard to understand that money spent on "foreign" military programs is going to US businesses and citizens and therefore is not really "foreign". The question therefore has to be: Which government programs improve the well-being of US citizens the most?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Чебурашка, ты настоящий друг!
United Kingdom
Durham
flag msg tools
Are we so sure of ourselves and of our age as to divide the company of our forefathers into the just and the damned?
mbmbmbmbmb
How about a healthy compromise between domination and withdrawal?

I mean, for all his criticism of the US, some of it justified, his view (at least with regard to Russia and Ukraine) is still enormously US-centric, incapable of understanding that things happen in the world without US involvement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Salo sila wrote:
How about a healthy compromise between domination and withdrawal?

I mean, for all his criticism of the US, some of it justified, his view (at least with regard to Russia and Ukraine) is still enormously US-centric, incapable of understanding that things happen in the world without US involvement.

Not really sure what you mean. Could you explain a little further? NATO/EU expansion to Ukraine was that not the catalyst that sparked Russia to annex Crimea?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Alleman
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
odie73 wrote:
ironcates wrote:
odie73 wrote:
Daddys_Home wrote:
Wasn't talking about if we spend it here or there. I was saying instead of giving money to the military industrial complex, we spend that money on domestic programs.

Sorry if I misunderstood you but the word "programs" does not mean much. The F35 was developed through the "Joint Strike Fighter Program".
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/lakehurst/home.cfm?Content...

By domestic programs he means programs that improve the well being of Americans in the United States. Examples: infrastructure programs, social welfare programs, the space program, even military defense programs.

I might differ with liberals here and say we don't really need the government to do either, but I'd favor domestic programs over foreign military programs.

I get that. I am simply pointing out that the term "domestic programs" is misleading and does not exclude military spending. And the employees and shareholders of Lockheed Martin would certainly argue that the F35 program improved their well-being.

Apparently, it is also hard to understand that money spent on "foreign" military programs is going to US businesses and citizens and therefore is not really "foreign". The question therefore has to be: Which government programs improve the well-being of US citizens the most?


We know the answer. It's healthcare and education. Giving money to a few private corporations, who are allowed to avoid taxes and suck off the government at the same time and then create war abroad doesn't seem to be a good long term strategy. Seems like you're letting the government pick winners and pissing off people around the world. I'd rather we spend that money on educating the people, so we know who's fucking us. Hint: It's both parties and our insistence to be able to blow the world up several times over. We certainly don't need more fucking weapons. Although I fully support the second amendment for non-crazy people.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Чебурашка, ты настоящий друг!
United Kingdom
Durham
flag msg tools
Are we so sure of ourselves and of our age as to divide the company of our forefathers into the just and the damned?
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Salo sila wrote:
How about a healthy compromise between domination and withdrawal?

I mean, for all his criticism of the US, some of it justified, his view (at least with regard to Russia and Ukraine) is still enormously US-centric, incapable of understanding that things happen in the world without US involvement.

Not really sure what you mean. Could you explain a little further? NATO/EU expansion to Ukraine was that not the catalyst that sparked Russia to annex Crimea?


What does “catalyst” mean in this context? Obviously, Russian resentment at the East European expansion of NATO (more than that of the EU) in the 1990s and 2000s, and the supposed broken promise it represented, is part of the background of the annexation of Crimea.

However, it was only one aspect of the background and not the immediate cause of the conflict: it was Yanukovych’s rejection of an association agreement with the EU that sparked the demonstrations. The dynamics of the rest of the crisis, which led to his effective abdication and the consequent annexation of Crimea, is perfectly comprehensible through reference to domestic developments: the use of violence against protestors, the extension of the protests to Yanukovych’s rule in general (and not just the association agreement) and the increasing radicalisation of the protestors accompanied by the role of the far right. The problem with saying that the US “100 %” at fault, as your interviewee does, is that it ignores internal Ukrainian developments beyond the US’s control.

Certainly, Russia's response to Yanukovych's fall was, in part, a product of the fear of being surrounded by NATO. However, this was probably a misplaced concern. NATO membership for Ukraine was hardly on the cards: numerous West European members had vetoed it in 2008 and the Ukrainian population had consistently revealed itself in polls to be against, too.

So where did the Russians see the connection to NATO and the US? According to Russia and the interviewee in your podcast, US involvement in Yanukovych’s fall was as the initiator of a coup, as evidenced by the Pyatt-Nuland tape. I have in past posts explained why this understanding misunderstands both the text and the context of the Pyatt-Nuland conversation. You can read about that aspect there.

Moreover by blaming the US 100 %, you also ignore autochthonous developments in Russia. The feeling of national humiliation created by the collapse of the Soviet Union has meant that Russia has always had the potential for a revanchist turn in policy, regardless of what NATO did. The impoverishment created by chaotic transition to capitalism in the 1990s and the belief that the West was responsible for this built upon a pre-existing willingness inherited from the Soviets to blame foreign plots for domestic problems, strengthening the readiness to see foreign machinations behind all events. At the same time, there is a longstanding Russian scepticism toward the very existence of a Ukrainian nation, often seeing the very idea of Ukraine as a Western intrigue; one push, so the idea went, and it might all fall down, which indeed seems to be what Russia tried in the Donbas. All of these aspects shaped the Russian response to Yanukovych’s fall as much as past NATO expansion. Indeed, by proposing the Eurasian Union, a project inimical to many Ukrainians, and backing it up with trade blockages, Russia was threatening the status quo no less than the EU.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
The neocons are circling... we can't expect much from Trump. He won his nomination being the only one condemning Iraq and saber-rattling with Russia, so there is a faint glimmer of hope.


Being against "Condemning Iraq" is a bit of a stretch when he endorsed the war -- saying "no I didn't" over and over was bizarrely effective, though!

(But sure, being chummy w/ Russia, that's a thing. I hope it helps w/ ISIS at the very least.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.