Jump to content
Cosmoline

I saw AOC Dancing and I'm a Leftist now. It's too late.

Recommended Posts

new%20shoes%20-%20AOC_zpsmlix3lgx.jpg


Nevertheless, AOC rocks shoes better than Kevin, not to mention those pins.

Edited by Snorky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cosmo, the more I see and hear of AOC, the more I feel this thread title should be changed to "I saw AOC Dancing and I'm a Leftist now, even though it's too late"

I'm sure you'll give due consideration to editing the thread title.

I remain yours,
Snorky Down Under

(subsidiary of the Quigley Esq. group of companies)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand her role.  She's a frosh rep.  Not even a Senator.  She's not in a position to make any policy, nor will she be for a good while (assuming she climbs the ladders successfully).  She understands her role is to agitate without alienating her bosses, and she's doing a fine job of it.  Gabbard, OTOH, made a point of pissing off a lot of people in her party while gaining negligible support domestically.  The constituency for someone who is against foreign intervention, in favor of the WOT and who seems willing to chat with the likes of Assad is nowhere to be seen stateside.  I guess she's popular overseas.  AOC, in contrast, is pushing hard on local socialist projects like free college, medicare for all, etc.  These will not happen in the near future, but her appeal goes directly to the disaffected youth. She's also got tons of mojo/moxie and WILL dominate the microphone and TV screen. 

Edited by Cosmoline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Pod Save America someone commented that all the Democrat presidential candidates are saying the same things because they all have the same policy adviser - AOC's Twitter feed. It's not far from the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cosmoline said:

 Gabbard, OTOH, made a point of pissing off a lot of people in her party while gaining negligible support domestically.  The constituency for someone who is against foreign intervention, in favor of the WOT and who seems willing to chat with the likes of Assad is nowhere to be seen stateside.  I guess she's popular overseas.

That has been explained at least three times now and you just repeat it at the slightest opportunity.

And the "overseas" bit is hilarious: " I reckon those furriners like her".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democratic Primary voters won't be correctly threading that semantics needle either I am afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikey mikey said:

That has been explained at least three times now and you just repeat it at the slightest opportunity.

And the "overseas" bit is hilarious: " I reckon those furriners like her".

Well, explain to me where the domestic voting block is that FAVORS the war on terror (including potential torture!) yet OPPOSES intervention.  Those are HER POSITIONS which she has explained in prior interviews.  The WOT gave rise to modern interventionism.  Trying to separate the two is preposterous.  But I guess she's still wedded to the DOD on some level and has to find justification for what the military did. She certainly isn't willing to recast the WOT as a criminal justice matter and divest her peeps at the Pentagon of control. 

She's not pulling from Trump because she's a Democrat with some leftist policies.  OTOH she's gotten attacked from the left for being too soft on gun control.  And virtually nobody is here is going to rush to vote for her because she's gone to meet with Assad.  Without passing judgment on any of this--I'm asking you to tell me WHAT STATES WILL GO FOR HER as a result of her mixed, weird bag of policies.  Add to that she's as charismatic as any officer droning on to her troops. 

She's from a state that will go blue no matter what.  She's spent basically zero time crafting policies that will gain traction in the swing states.  And she comes across very poorly.  It's possible she could win, but I'm not sure how that would happen.  On top of all this she's pissed off the DNC.  So where's her support?

Edited by Cosmoline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cosmoline said:

The WOT gave rise to modern interventionism.  Trying to separate the two is preposterous.

I don't think so. Gabbard is in favour of fighting terrorists, and seems to have volunteered to do quite a lot of that. We associate that idea with invading countries against the will of the locals, or flying drones into foreign countries and conducting extrajudicial executions (i.e. war crimes), but it doesn't have to be that way. Powerful countries with large militaries can be invited in by their smaller allies to deal with terrorists. Or the US can join international coalitions that form to fight ISIS and other threats. Or, even better, everyone can commit troops to UN led multilateral operations to fight terrorists.

These operations don't have to involve invading foreign countries, committing war crimes, or forcefully changing regimes in other countries. The WoT provided cover for the US to do all these things because they were perceived by neocons to be in its national interest - although in reality they have been one expensive and tragic disaster after another, causing refugee crises and destabilising the world even further. Regime change created the power vacuums and widespread alienation that ISIS and others have exploited. So it makes perfect sense to separate that whole concept from the idea of fighting terrorists. You can't fight them with one hand and help them with the other. 

To me it always comes down to the historical fact that this is exactly what we created the UN for. The US should never be seen as the world's police force. When military force is justified against a threat like ISIS, the response should be multilateral and should be directed via the organisation we created to do that job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, lisae said:

Powerful countries with large militaries can be invited in by their smaller allies to deal with terrorists. Or the US can join international coalitions that form to fight ISIS and other threats. Or, even better, everyone can commit troops to UN led multilateral operations to fight terrorists.

That's just intervention under different names.  There's almost always an invitation or some kind of multinational coalition.  But these become pretexts for nation involvement in domestic policies or outright nation building/destroying.  That's what we've seen over and over again. In any case, even if her position has merit I don't see it as a meaningful sales pitch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, lisae said:

These operations don't have to involve invading foreign countries, committing war crimes, or forcefully changing regimes in other countries

Do you have specific examples?  Afghanistan was a coalition invasion to fight terrorists.  So was Iraq. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were part of the 'Coalition of the Willing' in the Iraq debacle along with 46 other so-called countries (only the UK, 'Poland' and Australia actually provided troops on or after Schock 'n' Awe commenced, from memory). All the other countries were majoritively shitholey and militarily a joke.

I am reliably informed members of our deadly SAS were on the ground in Iraq two weeks before Shock 'n' Awe commenced, slicing and dicing by hand and otherwise taking out certain targeted individuals as ordered and advised.

Edited by Snorky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cosmoline said:

Do you have specific examples?  Afghanistan was a coalition invasion to fight terrorists.  So was Iraq. 

French led counterterrorism operations in Mali? That's the first example that comes to mind. There's some debate about the intervention's legality, but it was by invitation of the government and had implied authorisation by the UN security council. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292401372_The_French_military_intervention_in_Mali_counter-terrorism_and_the_law_of_armed_conflict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Iraq had nothing actually to do with terrorism. Afghanistan was tangentially related to terrorism, although Pakistan were the real sponsors of AQ. And the 911 attackers were, of course, mainly Saudi Arabian. These interventions were primarily regime change wars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The WOT gave rise to modern interventionism

Yugoslav wars gave rise to modern interventions sold as "humanitarian" and that started 10 years before 9/11, although it took a while for the US to get involved. There was also Somalia in 1994 and Haiti in 1992.

Edited by Beltaine fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cosmoline said:

Well, explain to me where the domestic voting block is that FAVORS the war on terror (including potential torture!) yet OPPOSES intervention.  T

Don't recall any approval of torture. Quote that, please.

Quote

The WOT gave rise to modern interventionism. 

No the War on Terror began when Bush first used the term in 2001, Spetember 16.

What you term as "modern" interventionism goes back as a constant and continuous policy of the US (and the UK) throughout the twentieth century. Bay of Pigs ring any bells?

Quote

Trying to separate the two is preposterous. 

It is only if you seperate the context of the battle between ISIS and Syrian forces. Which you are determined to do.

Quote

On top of all this she's pissed off the DNC.

That is a selling point at this stage,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cosmoline said:
11 hours ago, lisae said:

Powerful countries with large militaries can be invited in by their smaller allies to deal with terrorists.

That's just intervention under different names. 

With the significant difference that it is legal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikey mikey said:

Don't recall any approval of torture. Quote that, please.

She did an interview talking about it.  She says she's "conflicted" about the post 9/11 torture programs and falls back to the ever-familiar bullshit about "stopping a nuke" by torturing people. 

 

Edited by Cosmoline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikey mikey said:

With the significant difference that it is legal. 

So your issue isn't rendition, torture, murder and kidnapping.  It's whether the initial use of our troops was invited by some autocrat or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is TORTURE.  So you can see the problem with trying to justify one horrific illegal act but condemning another.  Especially when the two have gone HAND-IN-GLOVE since 9/11.  If you're slaughtering civilians and destabilizing regions, it makes little difference whether the head of state approved of your actions.

 

Edited by Cosmoline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×