2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#9,126
#9,126
hog88 said:
Can't answer that question.
Click to expand...

Presumably the answer is no. I know of nobody who is claiming they supported Libya intervention because of WH or intelligence misinformation, and if Trump had felt lied to, he would have said so.
 
#9,127
#9,127
n_huffhines said:
Where do you disagree with their evaluations? Do you not like the American Conservative? If you don't, you might as well call yourself a RINO.
Click to expand...

I don't know what comparable British websites or publications are. I read The Spectator and Foreign Policy. I also keep tabs on the CATO and Hoover Institute posts. Have to say I have only been on the American Conservative website a handful of times.

Non-interventionism is a very old conservative belief, but that generally changed after WWII. Especially after the general acceptance of NSC-68 during the Cold War by the Eisenhower administration. I tend to think modern non-interventionism pretty close to isolationism but obviously there are nuances.

Ultimately to solve the current problems within the Middle East you can't be 100% non-interventionist. I think there is value in applying a less-hawkish foreign policy but to combat threats like ISIS it will likely require intervention. And, yes, that probably means troops - or at the very least special forces - on the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,128
#9,128
n_huffhines said:
LOL, I should have phrased it better. Did Trump support involvement in Libya because of false information?
Click to expand...

But how can you know that Hillary voted for the Iraq War because she thought there were weapons of mass destruction? Her judgement as Sec of St. and association with crazies like Nuland would lead me to question that. She might have voted for it for the oil, we don't know. Either way it was as equally bad a decision as Trump with Libya.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,129
#9,129
n_huffhines said:
Presumably the answer is no. I know of nobody who is claiming they supported Libya intervention because of WH or intelligence misinformation, and if Trump had felt lied to, he would have said so.
Click to expand...

The answer should be yes, we were fed bad information about Libya. Or perhaps it might be better to phrase it as "not all the information" about Libya. It's easier to see in hindsight (much like Iraq and Afghanistan) but the information was skewed.

Think about how far Gaddafi had come by the time the people revolted. He swore off terrorism in 2003, opened the nation to IAEA inspections, signed the chemical warfare treaty. Enough so that in 2006, the US took him off the state sponsored terrorism list and reopened diplomatic relations and an embassy for the first time since 1979. He was changing in the world and attempting to join the ranks of civilized nations.

Then of course in 2011, we decided to help this movement spawned by the Arab Spring. Which we damn well should have (and probably did know) to be a front for fundamental Islam (and likely radical Islam) that was dangerous in the making. And we see where that ended up in Egypt as well as what's currently happening in Libya. And I'd bet pennies to dollars that information was available then and was ignored.
 
#9,134
#9,134
Vol8188 said:
I feel like you didn't read this article
Click to expand...

You mean like this:

The Obama administration has dragged its feet on revoking Obamacare coverage for people who can’t prove U.S. citizenship or legal residency, allowing some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. to continue enjoying taxpayer-funded benefits,
Nearly 1 million people who signed up but had what the administration called “immigration data-matching issues” have been given six months to produce immigration documents while still covered, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9,135
#9,135
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9,136
#9,136
Carl Pickens said:
You mean like this:

The Obama administration has dragged its feet on revoking Obamacare coverage for people who can’t prove U.S. citizenship or legal residency, allowing some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. to continue enjoying taxpayer-funded benefits,
Nearly 1 million people who signed up but had what the administration called “immigration data-matching issues” have been given six months to produce immigration documents while still covered, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Click to expand...

Keep going
 
#9,141
#9,141
Say there are 1 million illegal pupils (which is likely a severe underestimate), based on average funding per student that is $10bn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,149
#9,149
alexmanu said:
Non-interventionism is a very old conservative belief, but that generally changed after WWII. Especially after the general acceptance of NSC-68 during the Cold War by the Eisenhower administration. I tend to think modern non-interventionism pretty close to isolationism but obviously there are nuances.
Click to expand...

WWII isn't comparable to our modern day interventions. Truman got us into Korea. Kennedy and LBJ got us into Vietnam. They ended under Republicans. Intervention under Rs wasn't really a thing until Bush.

Also, most of our interventions have been complete disasters. It's one thing to help in a world war where war has been declared on us. Our interventions today are within countries, not between countries. It's not even close to the same thing as WWII.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top