That's a lot of correlation rather than causation, for me.
2020 US Election (Part One)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
We now know from access to the Russian archives that Stalin never considered invasion of Western Europe (although both Western Europe and Stalin feared the other side would invade). On the other hand Stalin was prepared to interfere in the domestic politics of Western European countries using Communist parties. The Marshall Plan was probably more important in preventing Communist expansion into Western Europe than NATO. The Marshall Plan was generous as well as self-interested and Western Europe should be grateful for it but it doesn't make your current aid budget generous nor am I prepared to give the US government credit for the charity of US citizens.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
I have made the argument, quite unpopular in progressive circles, that a Marshal Plan for Afghanistan and Iraq was always the way to go if we were sincere in trying to flip the Middle East.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Effectively they got Marshal Plans. As @Commodore pointed out in some other thread, the biggest recipients of actual foreign aid (even when counting military spending separately) are those countries. The US has spent enough to rebuild them several times over at this point but a lot of the money has been lost to graft and waste. And because the violence has never stopped, every gain comes with a loss. Sometimes the losses are bigger than the gains, as when ISIS rose up in Iraq.
My father went to both countries at the height of the wars and in Iraq his primary mission was rebuilding and running the zoo, not combat. Can't remember what he did in Afghanistan but point being, a lot of American soldiers get sent over to manage and oversee construction projects, not hunt down insurgents. And then there are the armies of civilian contractors sent over for construction as well.
My father went to both countries at the height of the wars and in Iraq his primary mission was rebuilding and running the zoo, not combat. Can't remember what he did in Afghanistan but point being, a lot of American soldiers get sent over to manage and oversee construction projects, not hunt down insurgents. And then there are the armies of civilian contractors sent over for construction as well.
Lexicus
Deity
No, instead we live in a world where the USA props up capitalist and right-wing dictatorships around the world. Of course, the scary thing is you actually think this is so much better than "communist regimes" that it's worth all the blood spilled...which is exactly what the Nazis thought when they invaded the Soviet Union but who's counting?
Yeah, the problem, as you point out, is we set up kleptocracies and pretended they were functional governments.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
And far too often, the US operates as a kleptocracy itself. Cheney got pooped on over his ties to Halliburton for a reason.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Say, can I interest you in a magic rock that keeps away tigers?
‘Probably’? So you're not even sure?
What are you talking about? I didn't point to any trend; it's a basic law of politics.
Yes, because of the United States' heavy presence. Remove them, and the whole equation changes.
As much suffering as those regimes cause, I think they're better than communist ones - but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. The main point is that the suffering a Soviet empire would have caused in Eurasia is far worse than what those places actually got.
Guns, as far I know, work.
I'm not sure about the precise number of lives, but extremely confident that a world without the US as global hegemon would be worse. If we withdrew now, China and Russia would immediately invade or try to force a new status quo upon their neighbors, Saudi Arabia (and the Persian Gulf) would descend into chaos, and there would be a Franco-German war within the decade. Keep in mind that there are a lot of nuclear powers involved, there.
Berzerker
Deity
We have a phone call and transcript with Trump asking Ukraine to investigate their interference in our election. Are you saying Trump didn't want Ukraine to work with Barr to find out what happened in 2016? You're describing a different exchange offering a WH meeting to publicly announce the investigation. Biden openly bragged about Obama's bribery-extortion scheme. Thats what we do, we buy friends and favors.
Allegations about what Biden and/or Obama did don't excuse Trump's wrongdoing, and bringing them up is just the typical whataboutism peddled by Trump supporters.
One of the great things about the Disgraced- Impeached-president Trump being Impeached in the first place, is it sets the standard that corrupt Presidents get impeached. Maybe now Congress can start keeping POTUS administrations in line going forward.
This was a great step in the direction of curbing runaway executive power and maybe getting us back on track to a real system of checks and balances. That alone made the impeachment worth the price of admission.
I'm so happy Trump finally got the impeachment he deserved. I really was thinking the Democrats would cower out of it. I'm very proud of our government here for doing the right thing for a change. What a wonderful Christmas present for America.
No, because Stalin already had his cordon sanitaire of puppet states around Russia, and Russia needed to recover from the war.
I doubt that Western Europe, which needed to recover as well, would have been able to halt the Russian advance by themselves for an entire half century.
I hope rubber-stamping his presidency with 'impeachment' was worth the second term you've given him.
You think that impeachment will somehow help him an election he wouldn't have won anyway? That is, people who wouldn't have voted for him next November will somehow feel compelled to vote for him now?
I think it's made rural America and people in red states even more determined while making progressives complacent. I'm exaggerating about the effect (I don't think predicting the next president is really possible), but this is a bad move by the Democrats.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The issue wasn't actually just Russia. Prior to NATO there was no indication that European states that had been pretty much continuously at war for their entire history were ever going to stop. Whether the next war would have been yet another round with Germany, or a renewal of the endless hostilities between Britain and France, or another "rise to glory" coming out of Iberia, or who knows what, the entire concept of "Europe at peace" was absolutely laughable at the time. Things look very different from the EU perspective of the 21st century, but the claim that this unprecedented situation would have come about some other way cannot be substantiated, and certainly couldn't have been predicted at the time.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Here's the Democrats' lineup for 2020:
Biden -- I think this guy could have beaten Trump in 2016 but now in 2020 is pretty weak. If the GOP has some aggressive Lee Atwater types in their midst they could really hammer in, rightly or wrongly, the idea that Biden is kind of kooky. I don't think he is, but I'm just talking about winning the election rather than the objective merits of each candidate.
Warren -- Good golly Miss Molly, are the Democrats going to pick the only woman in the party less likable than Hillary Clinton?
Sanders -- the Ron Paul of the left. Strong base, won't build it. Non-factor in the election.
Buttigieg -- mayor of where again? South Bend, Indiana? Dan Quayle was from Indiana too, and I kind of get the same vibe.
Yang -- the John McAfee of the left. Somehow has less of a chance of winning than Sanders, which is already zero.
Tomichael Steyerberg -- why bother writing up both of them? As if the Democrats are going to nominate an old white billionaire.
Klobuchar -- on paper, probably the least offensive candidate for trying to take out Trump but doesn't seem to have the "it" factor in getting voters to the polls.
I think given the current situation, it's Trump's election to lose. He's already got the Trump personality advantage in that things that would have sunk other candidates and the country is not in economic recession. The Democrats really have to find a new slate of candidates if they want to win this year, or they should be focusing their resources on local races to secure control of the House or try to flip some Senate seats.
Biden -- I think this guy could have beaten Trump in 2016 but now in 2020 is pretty weak. If the GOP has some aggressive Lee Atwater types in their midst they could really hammer in, rightly or wrongly, the idea that Biden is kind of kooky. I don't think he is, but I'm just talking about winning the election rather than the objective merits of each candidate.
Warren -- Good golly Miss Molly, are the Democrats going to pick the only woman in the party less likable than Hillary Clinton?
Sanders -- the Ron Paul of the left. Strong base, won't build it. Non-factor in the election.
Buttigieg -- mayor of where again? South Bend, Indiana? Dan Quayle was from Indiana too, and I kind of get the same vibe.
Yang -- the John McAfee of the left. Somehow has less of a chance of winning than Sanders, which is already zero.
Tomichael Steyerberg -- why bother writing up both of them? As if the Democrats are going to nominate an old white billionaire.
Klobuchar -- on paper, probably the least offensive candidate for trying to take out Trump but doesn't seem to have the "it" factor in getting voters to the polls.
I think given the current situation, it's Trump's election to lose. He's already got the Trump personality advantage in that things that would have sunk other candidates and the country is not in economic recession. The Democrats really have to find a new slate of candidates if they want to win this year, or they should be focusing their resources on local races to secure control of the House or try to flip some Senate seats.
Which was why the Marshall Plan was important.
Russia was in no condition to launch an invasion at that time and Stalin wasn't a gambler.
Stab Poland in the back and occupy the Baltic States easy. Invade Finland well the Russians expected that to be easy too.
Stalin wanted his cordon sanitaire and to restore Russian pre-Revolution borders. Everywhere except Finland he achieved that.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
At this point my wholly unscientific answer would be: the now theoretical nominee Sanders and actual nominee Sanders are two different polling options and that trying to determine the outcome of an election a year from now at this point with this information is unlikely to produce a result that will accurately match the ultimate election turnout.
- Status
