As an outsider .. I'm in Australia. Trump is probably going to win. You've got no one else. What, Hilary Clinton. She's not really impressing me. She has no substance, and she's running a negative campaign against her competition. Which is piss weak.

US two party voting gets even 'more interesting' when you look the whole electoral college thing.

I also greatly prefer a Parliamentary style system, as it seems to be a system which "Sucks the least".

The problem we have is that we've taken a system which works 'fine' when very few people had a say and have tried to directly scale it.
It hasn't worked.

I don't think it has really worked anywhere, but its basically impossible to have a conversation about it because if you dare to doubt the Enshrined Wisdom which is Democracy! then people basically trot out that tired old Churchill quote and yell "Democracy! WOOOO!" in your face before going back to thinking their vote matters.

The way people talk about the system in place we have right now you'd think it was an immutable law of the universe or something and that it is The Best It Will Ever Be, not some thing a dude dreamt up somewhere and could probably use some refinement.

But those in power probably wouldn't benefit from a change so yeah, while the people think they have a voice we'll just carry on as we are...

Sadly Canada's system has become overly party focused, and too many people get overly focused on leaders, but our Prime Minister is still elected as only a minister the same as all the others, and then the minsters choose the PM. The beauty of this system is that if some horrible scandal comes out the day after the election and absolutely no one in the country likes whoever the PM is, then we don't need another election. The house just picks a new leader and we get on with business.

Yeah, we've the same problem in the UK - people have basically taken the vote not to mean 'vote for your local representative' but 'vote for the PM' when means you get the BS of 'I didn't vote for them!' crop up when you have a change of PM (Blair/Brown and, to a lesser extent, Cameron/May)... it's like, "you are right, you didn't... you didn't vote for any PM!'.

Although you can almost forgive them because party politics pretty much does mean you are voting for the PM, just indirectly....

(And people do that 'wrong' too - don't like the central government? Vote out your local councillors regardless of how well they are doing locally in your local elections. Don't like the job the local councillors are doing? Vote out your MP! That'll show 'em! Ugh... people.)

On the other extreme, the lefties and their tree hugging mentality of "lets be nice to each other and no one gets hurt"... this is the reason why the EU is in the middle of this fugitive crisis, and still has no boots on the ground in Syria. I think this should have consequences for many EU politicians, AND country leaders that influenced the EU (you know who I mean).

The fact that you've both used derogatory "leftie" and deliberately conflated refugees with criminals in the one sentence, makes it seem like you're the kind of person who's happy to support an autocratic regeime that crushes logic and reason...

...but FWIW... there are "boots on the ground" in Syria and the EU and the US put them there. They're Islamist boots who are carrying out the decade-old western policy objective of overthrowing Syria's government and letting the country descend into controllable chaos. It is exactly by design -- and your misdirection of hating the exact opposite people responsible, while begging those who are responsible to please do something is itself complicity by ignorance. The US and EU previously used the same boots to overthrow Libya along with a laughable propaganda campaign to get you on side, in order to further western interests. If the results of Libya falling from Africa's greatest country to an ISIS stronghold isn't obvious enough (and Libyan weapons and ISIS fighters being funnelled from Libya, via Turkey, to Syria to fight our war for us...), we can now thank Hillary's mishandling of sensitive emails for shedding light on Obama and Sarkozy's real issues with Gaddafi - which were purely economic, nothing to do with the stories they fed us.

We all know that Iraq was based on absolute lies. We've all seen US leaders stand before the world and knowingly feed us utter bullshit about Iraq and Afghanistan in the leadup to those wars. It's common knowledge but of little consequence - official these were mistakes, even though they've been shown to be malicious and deliberate. Is it still too soon to be open about the fact that Libya was lies too? Perhaps after Obama steps down they can be open about it, but brush it off as a simple mistake, as they always do. Obama lied on Libya and Syria. Bush 2 lied on Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela... Clinton 1 lied on Kosovo and Iraq (and presided over the deliberate deaths of 500000 Iraqi children, mind you). Bush 1 lied on Iraq. Ford lied on Indonesia. Nixon lied on Chile (that other 9/11...). Eisenhower and Johnson lied on Vietnam...etc...
So, as an outsider:

Okay, so I make it more clear: I really think the current EU politics, and especially Merkel who is the architect of those, on behalf of the fugitives and syria is WAY off the mark.

1. This IS europes business. Like it or not, europe is the area of the world where most fugitives of such a crisis in syria will end up. They will certainly not go to russia where they trade being killed in a war for living under an autocrate... and of course, no one knows if the russian are just as humatarian as europe currently tries to be when they get flooded by syrian refugees... or if they can be given the dire state of their economy.

Of course they will also not end up in the US. Its on the other end of the planet!

Of course most fugitives will end up in europe. So this IS our business.

2. Its all nice and dandy to be neutral and pacifistic. But there is a threshold to when pacifism is actually making things worse. I don't think you can solve the Syria crisis, as in Assad vs his own people with military force. Not with russia involved helping Assad, and I am also not sure it would be the right thing to do. Best thing you can do is make sure Assad cannot claim back ALL of syria... and that he needs to sit down on a round table and start discussing things. Still, this needs boots on the ground, enough to withstand both Assad and his russian helpers, no matter what.

And then there is the ISIS. There is only one Solution for ISIS: destroy them. With all means necessary. ISIS has done EVERYTHING to make it easy from a moral, as well as diplomatic stance to go all out on them. Nobody in their right mind in the region really stands behind ISIS. Compared to other "terrorist" organizations which are seen as freedom fighters by some, nobody, not even the most deluded islamist, is going to misinterpret what ISIS is once they have seen their deeds: an extremly brutal mercenary army.

I am pretty sure there is only one priority right now: destroy ISIS. What comes after that has to be seen. But without ISIS gone, this conflict will never end.

Thus I am really sick and tired of what I call "lefties politics" that prevent the armies of european countries to help in one of the few conflicts of the last few years which had at least one very easy to make out bad guy.

3. I am all for humanitarian help. But really, if those humanitarian actions threaten to rip apart the EU, AND drive multiple european countries even further into the hands of rightwing extremists, I'd say caution has to be excercised. Its not attacking the problem at its root. And all the guys concerned about the fugitives might be influenced by rightwing propaganda, but they are right in at least one point: just letting them in and not doing anything about the root cause helps no one. Especially not the fugitives who will also not have a very bright future in the european countries.

On your further topics, yes I know its a dangerous game. Especially with the russian now also involved. That is why it is important to put up clear goals from the beginning, and not mixing these simple goals with vague moral ones... like "bringing syrian people freedom" or "bringing syria democraty". Its about something far simpler, its about making sure syrian people no longer are threatened by crazy mercenaries running amok in their country. If Assad has to be part of the future of this country, so be it. The ISIS is far worse than him.

So I think the west CAN get involved in the conflict without repeating the mistakes of the past. Don't attack someone without a good reason (no matter how bad Saddam was, that reason was weak as hell)... don't try to force your own ideals and values on people... don't overthrow the old regime in the hope a new, better one will form.

I am just sure myself europe, and the rest of the world will not get out of this without a fight. ISIS is like a cancer that needs to be removed. Trying to weather it and hoping it will shrink and wither most probably just means waiting for your death.

That is why I am so pissed with the current crop of politicians in the EU, and how they seem to either not see that or are to cowardly to come to terms with an unpleasant reality in time. The last time europe thought they could stop the worst from happening with an appeasement politics and waiting for the other side to come to their senses ended in one of the bloodiest wars in human history.

What if Poland wouldn't have fallen? What if the germans would have been stopped there and then? Yes, its easy to say that in hindsight... but I am feeling europeans are starting to forget the past when they just watch as syria falls into chaos, and are to busy minding their own business to care.

As to using "rebels" as boots on the ground: yes, I agree with your this is quite dangerous. Which is exactly why now is the time to make the unpopular decision to send troops, and put non-local boots on the ground. Don't arm a local warlord you don't know that well with modern weapons... send the personel to man them yourself.

Sure, this will not prevent the country from falling into chaos afterwards.... which is why going after the regime no matter what might be not so a good idea.

Except 'EU policy' does not prevent European nations getting involved... because they ARE involved as I pointed out, but you apparently ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.

But we have to be careful about HOW we get involved - if European armies start getting involved on the ground then this can be spun in to 'Look at the Europeans invading our lands again!' which will only help ISIS and the like recruit; we already run that risk when an airstrike kills civilians after all...

This is why the ground fighting must be left to the people in the area; so they can capture their ground back and take control.
Otherwise you end up with European nations occupying ground, causing a build up of resentment and anger at their continued presence which, once they pull out, leads to a post-Iraq situation again and everything falls apart and the next ISIS-alike springs up to take care of the power vacuum.

(Also, European nation 'boots on the ground' would simply play in to the hands of the right anyway; "Why are we spending money on that far away land? Why are our troops dying for those others? We should fix our own problems!". Involved. Not involved. It serves them either way.)

Except 'EU policy' does not prevent European nations getting involved... because they ARE involved as I pointed out, but you apparently ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.

But we have to be careful about HOW we get involved - if European armies start getting involved on the ground then this can be spun in to 'Look at the Europeans invading our lands again!' which will only help ISIS and the like recruit; we already run that risk when an airstrike kills civilians after all...

This is why the ground fighting must be left to the people in the area; so they can capture their ground back and take control.
Otherwise you end up with European nations occupying ground, causing a build up of resentment and anger at their continued presence which, once they pull out, leads to a post-Iraq situation again and everything falls apart and the next ISIS-alike springs up to take care of the power vacuum.

(Also, European nation 'boots on the ground' would simply play in to the hands of the right anyway; "Why are we spending money on that far away land? Why are our troops dying for those others? We should fix our own problems!". Involved. Not involved. It serves them either way.)

Well, sending a Jetfighter or two isn't going to make this mess any less chaotic.

I am pretty aware of the danger. But risking saying something that might not go down well, I don't think you can avoid terrorism by not getting involved. If the current "terrorist" attacks in europe prove one thing, its that terror no longer is targetted at anyone. Its now just angry kids feeling empowered to live their violent power fantasies and afterwards blaming it on the ISIS... and the ISIS being happy to take the blame, as it fits their agenda well.

If anything, the ISIS will fit anyone unhappy with the current state of things, and mentally unstable enough to kill people without regard for his own life... it doesn't matter if your country was involved in anything. A mere "its part of the evil wester coalition" might already be enough.

So really, there is no excuse anymore that you fear terroristic retalition. That will come to europe either way. And it will hit anyone, as everyone has mentally unstable, disgruntled youth in their country.

As to blaming the west for whats going wrong afterwards... well, isn't that also going to happen anyway? It the west does nothing, you can be sure people will claim the west should have done something.

And then there is the thing: When the US caught flak in the last few conflicts were they intervened, problem wasn't just the collateral damage. Problem was also that they DID do the wrong things, ESPECIALLY after the conflict. The problem was that they attacked for all the wrong reasons. And that they made alliances in the region they better shouldn't have. They took sides in a conflict were there are no clear sides.

Which lead to what we know today as the ISIS. Whose nucleus were saddams army that got kicked out of their jobs after the war.

Arming the next generation of rebels with modern weapons is also a huge risk. You really don't know who they are. And what their goals are... and more worringly, what their goals will be once this conflict is over.

You really think the rebels will just put down their weapons once ISIS is gone? Or even IF they manage to beat Assad. You really think they will throw their weapons in the bin, sit on a table and form a democratic state where shi'it and sunnite life happily ever after?

The real root of this and a lot of other conflicts in the region will not be solvable like that. Not by removing the ISIS, OR Assad. Its the religious rift between shi'its and sunnites. And lets not forget the local neighbouring powers all only following their own best interest.

No, as much as I hate to say it, in this situation putting foreign boots on the ground and invading countries might be the lesser of two evils... just don't try to chew of more than you can bite and "bring them democracy"

3. I am all for humanitarian help. But really, if those humanitarian actions threaten to rip apart the EU

Brexit wouldn't have won the vote if there wasn't a refugee crisis, so that already somewhat happened.

"Lefty politics" is something that's impacted the USA since we're war weary as well, because past mistakes like attacking Iraq/Libya/supporting "moderate" rebels etc. This power vacuum has allowed ISIS to grow.

Typically any time we just leave things alone after entering a conflict it tends to have disastrous consequences, like leaving the Korean/Vietnam war

1. This IS europes business. Like it or not, europe is the area of the world where most fugitives of such a crisis in syria will end up.

They made it their business long before refugees (again with "fugitives"? really?) started turning up... Perhaps about the time that they plotted to start the war in the first place? Maybe when they plotted to start the war in Libya with the same ISIS foot-soldiers?

2. Its all nice and dandy to be neutral and pacifistic. But there is a threshold to when pacifism is actually making things worse. I don't think you can solve the Syria crisis, as in Assad vs his own people with military force.

Being pacifistic would've meant that Syria would still be in one piece right now -- a pacifistic leadership wouldn't have started the war there.

And then there is the ISIS. There is only one Solution for ISIS: destroy them.

Why would we destroy them after going to the trouble of... actually creating this exact situation deliberately in the first place?

This is exactly what I mean... It's been US policy to destabilize Syria and have islmaist nutjobs tear it apart since back when Bush2 was in power. We train them, we arm them, we give them air support and huge tracts of land, we raise the roof when Russia actually bombs them for realsies, but you act like the US is sitting on their hands this whole time, and you beg them, "please intervene!"... While actually, this entire problem exists precisely because they have been intervening this entire time :rolleyes: The impression that you have, that they're doing nothing, and that they need to fight against their own assets, is pure marketing / PR on their part. It's also deliberate, as a population that's chomping at the bit is useful for their purposes.

Good work, you're a puppet.

Typically any time we just leave things alone after entering a conflict it tends to have disastrous consequences, like leaving the Korean/Vietnam war

While you did technically suffer a military defeat, and technically the communists remained in power... you should be aware that after the war, you absolutely did conquer Vietnam, taking control of its economy away from their own people and even from their own legislators, having free reign to mold it into a capitalist haven, and to privatize whatever you liked for the profit of American companies. In that sense, the Vietnamese people had their country destroyed twice, and America won...

My new thing is "at first piece of BS I stop reading and reply..."; it'll save us time.

Well, sending a Jetfighter or two isn't going to make this mess any less chaotic.

More than a 'jet fighter or two' has been sent.
There has been a sustained and constant campaign waged to weaken and destroy ISIL positions in the region, a campaign which has enabled them to be pushed back on my fronts by local ground troops.
(There have also been people on the ground to train and assist troops and special forces in country too.)

Currently the process seems to be working pretty well; ISIL have lost a large amount of ground and continue to do so.

Brexit wouldn't have won the vote if there wasn't a refugee crisis, so that already somewhat happened.

Bzzzt!
Wrong.

The UK is hardly touched by this crisis; what we've had is a 10 to 15+ year news campaign pushing a position of "Plucky UK vs Terrible EU" or "The Demon European!", combined with a deliberate and systemic set of lies (Example; A UK news paper claimed in a headline that thousands of migrants where coming to the UK to take advantage of the NHS; post-Breixt they printed a tiny retraction which basically said the story was made up) and mixing of the truths (confusing EU migrants, refugees and non-EU migrants).

The UK was ALWAYS going to vote to leave, I've been saying as much for years, so to anyone paying any real attention it wasn't a surprise and has fuck all to do with the refugee crisis.

While you did technically suffer a military defeat, and technically the communists remained in power... you should be aware that after the war, you absolutely did conquer Vietnam, taking control of its economy away from their own people and even from their own legislators, having free reign to mold it into a capitalist haven, and to privatize whatever you liked for the profit of American companies. In that sense, the Vietnamese people had their country destroyed twice, and America won...

I meant more about the whole south Vietnamese genocide/forced labor thing which would have been avoided if we attacked North Vietnam instead of trying to defend against guerrilla warfare in the south.

They turned to a capitalized market after because it just makes more sense.

The UK is hardly touched by this crisis; what we've had is a 10 to 15+ year news campaign pushing a position of "Plucky UK vs Terrible EU" or "The Demon European!", combined with a deliberate and systemic set of lies (Example; A UK news paper claimed in a headline that thousands of migrants where coming to the UK to take advantage of the NHS; post-Breixt they printed a tiny retraction which basically said the story was made up) and mixing of the truths (confusing EU migrants, refugees and non-EU migrants).

I agree that the UK doesn't get hit too hard with refugees, but fear over the situation was certainly a major factor

Immigration ranks consistently among the top five issues. As of June 2015, it was the issue picked most often by respondents (45%)

Figure 2 shows that large majorities in the 2013 British Social Attitudes survey endorsed reducing immigration. Indeed, over 56% chose ‘reduced a lot’, while 77% chose either ‘reduced a lot’ or ‘reduced a little’.

Even a small change would be enough to push many areas in the south into a remain vote. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-referendum/

I'd say the Brexit vote's pretty much a direct result of the politicians not listening to their constituents on Immigration/NHS reform.

1. This IS europes business. Like it or not, europe is the area of the world where most fugitives of such a crisis in syria will end up.

They made it their business long before refugees (again with "fugitives"? really?) started turning up... Perhaps about the time that they plotted to start the war in the first place? Maybe when they plotted to start the war in Libya with the same ISIS foot-soldiers?

2. Its all nice and dandy to be neutral and pacifistic. But there is a threshold to when pacifism is actually making things worse. I don't think you can solve the Syria crisis, as in Assad vs his own people with military force.

Being pacifistic would've meant that Syria would still be in one piece right now -- a pacifistic leadership wouldn't have started the war there.

And then there is the ISIS. There is only one Solution for ISIS: destroy them.

Why would we destroy them after going to the trouble of... actually creating this exact situation deliberately in the first place?

This is exactly what I mean... It's been US policy to destabilize Syria and have islmaist nutjobs tear it apart since back when Bush2 was in power. We train them, we arm them, we give them air support and huge tracts of land, we raise the roof when Russia actually bombs them for realsies, but you act like the US is sitting on their hands this whole time, and you beg them, "please intervene!"... While actually, this entire problem exists precisely because they have been intervening this entire time :rolleyes: The impression that you have, that they're doing nothing, and that they need to fight against their own assets, is pure marketing / PR on their part. It's also deliberate, as a population that's chomping at the bit is useful for their purposes.

Good work, you're a puppet.

Typically any time we just leave things alone after entering a conflict it tends to have disastrous consequences, like leaving the Korean/Vietnam war

While you did technically suffer a military defeat, and technically the communists remained in power... you should be aware that after the war, you absolutely did conquer Vietnam, taking control of its economy away from their own people and even from their own legislators, having free reign to mold it into a capitalist haven, and to privatize whatever you liked for the profit of American companies. In that sense, the Vietnamese people had their country destroyed twice, and America won...

1. Well, the "fugitive" thing is a non mother tongue thing... sorry about that. I meant refugees, of course. Happens sometimes when you are writing in a foreign language.

2. If Assad would have been more willing to make small concessions, the whole syria conflict could have been avoided, of course. If the US didn't invade the iraque, or never supported saddam in the first place... and so on.

Yes, the mess was fueled by other powers messing with it in the region. But it didn't start there. AFAIK the whole shi'it / sunnite conflict goes way back.

But I digress. There is a time to be pacifistic (which in an ideal world would be always), and there is a time were you should put aside your pacifism... when someone else is forcing your hands. At some point, sitting idle is no longer going to make things better. But of course, that is just my opinion.

3. If by "we" you mean the US or the western coalition... well yes, the ISIS certainly helps the rightwing extremists. Shortterm. They are certainly very welcome for Assad and russia.

But really, that is why europe should finally get going and do something indepentendly of the US. And I have my doubts if the US really would be so upset about getting rid of the ISIS... Instability of such proportions are no longer a good thing, even for the US hardliners. The economy will suffer even more from it, and we had more than enough crisis around the globe that made the economy nosedive.

4. Vietnam. Well. It was a mistake to even go there in the first place. And all in the name of "freeing a country from communism".

Korea... well... slightly different case. Given the nutjob family that was in charge of north korea for the last few decades, I guess it was good that at least half the country doesn't have to suffer under his regime.

But then, @conq: what do you exactly mean with disastrous consequences? AFAIK the US pulled out of Vietnam BECAUSE the consequences of entering the war were already disastrous (and they lost at "the home front" to war protesters). And what disastrous consequences were there in the korea war? Half the country was freed from the brutal regime of north korea. Freeing all of it in the face of China really wheeling in its full power just to keep the capitalists at a safe distance (and north korea as safety zone) was not realistic to begin with.

Preventing Kim whatever-his-name-was from taking it all doesn't sound like a disaster to me... maybe not the high flying, capitalistic-idealistic goals of preventing communism from spreading in asia and bringing capitalism and democracy and US airforce bases to yet another country.

But I guess many South Korean people are not unhappy with how things turned out, even though the country is pretty much split in half, and not only geographically.