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.

Well if you go back further than that, the USA was propping up the authoritarian dictatorship and allowing them to exist. The US had promised democratic elections, but knew that these would overthrow the government and cause the country to fall to the communists, so they were delayed forever... If democracy had been allowed to function, the entire war could have been avoided... which is what, 1.5M dead? That could've been massively reduced by either non-intervention, or by intervening to enforce democracy.

After the war, they turned to capitalism because they were forced to give up control over their own economic policy. The US promised billions in repatriation before the end of the war, as a sweetener to allow a cleaner withdrawal, but reneged once they were out. Vietnam couldn't afford the reconstruction costs, so took IMF and world bank loans, which they couldn't service, which forced them into signing over control of policy to foreign interests. This was not sensible for the common people - they lost out greatly during privatization.

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.

Oh, ok!
A lot of people deliberately use words like "criminals" or "illegals" instead of "refugees" or "asylum seekers". A fugitive is a criminal who is fleeing from the police - so I thought you were slandering the refugees, in a typical far-right manner :lol:

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.

And you've done the same bloody thing as the media - convoluted the refugee situation with the migrant workers situation from the EU.

And yes, immigration was a 'fear', because the press have been telling people for years it was a fear - the lazy free loading immigrants, coming over here to take all the benefits and steal all the jobs.

The press pushed this, people believed it and no facts to the contrary would undo that perception.

(Things like migrants were a net boost to the area they moved in to, or that 50% of migration was from non-EU states which we could control but didn't... these, btw, are the same migrants who in future, when we stop all the EU migrants (not that we will because our choice is pretty much free market/passporting and free movement, or tariffs, no passporting and full boarder control), will be making Britain Great Again... assuming the upswell in racism hasn't made them think twice about coming.. oh.. and that they earn more than £35kpa, which has already caused teachers to be deported... not that that matters as we'll slowly lose EU grant money for science anyway unless the government helps out, but we don't like experts now so screw those guys...)

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.

Okay, I give you that, I have underestimated the amount of involvment by european countries a little bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL

Still, I find relying so much on local troops to be a slightly worrysome development. At first, I was dead certain it was the way to go. But thinking about it, wasn't this just what made many warlords in the region rise to power? Saddam was supported heavely by the US as a puppet against the iran for example... see how that turned out.

What will a more powerful Kurd state in the north of iraqu do when turquey, by then maybe an autocratic state where erdogan alone can decide on military actions, intensifies their actions against the Kurd militia in turquey? Maybe even goes beyond the borders claiming to "fight terrorism"? Or if whoever rises to power in iraq starts to move against them to reclaim their territory?

What about the alawites should Assads regime really fail? Will they become hunted? Will that be the root for a new ISIS?

What about all the other dictators in the region that might now start to fear rebellions?

This region will not become stable overnight. And I don't think the locals can do it alone. I am questioning you should up arm ANYONE in the region before the dust settles... and by then, you hopefully do not need to arm them anymore.

And yes, I have heard the positive news. I have also heard contradicting news. Even IF it is successfull, chances are some people have gotten weapons from the west by then they shouldn't have gotten. Chances are not everyone who looked thrustworthy and working for a higher cause to the western coalition was really that thrustworthy or working for the same higher cause the western coalition worked for.

A good part of why the ISIS got as far as they did was western gear left back by the US. Either just stolen when iraq soldiers joined the IS, or claimed from the iraq troops when they have fled. I just hope the current strategy is not breeding the nucleus for the next ISIS to emerge in the region.

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

Unsure. Someone from UK might know better since all I know is what media told me during the two week before the vote.

But to me it looked like a lof of the "leave" votes came from people who sing their fathers' songs about that once-great glorious empire, and who are generally dissatisfied with Europe and themselves, as well as London and everything, even against all reason. That, and some very clever (or immensely stupid, depending on how bad the outcome will be) propaganda with deliberately false figures.

Indeed, many of the people interviewed on TV were of the kind that made me doubt whether they are sane at all any more. Such as 90 year olds talking about how great World War 2 was when they (presumably) were big, bad ass combat pilots with a penis made from solid steel, and now it's time to show the fucking Germans and the fucking French again who's the boss.
Or the fisherman who sells 80% of his fish in that fucking EU market. Which totally sucks, fuck the EU. So the question is: Why do you sell to the fucking EU market in the first place if that is not what you want? Well, go figure, because on the UK market you get even less money for your fish, so really... brilliant decision from your part, dude.

I'm not even sure if even the politicians who pushed forward "leave" were ever serious about it. To me, it looks more like they thought they'd play a prank, stirr up things, create a bit of controversy, gain public visibility. Because hey, what can happen, the votum won't make it through anyway. Oh shit, it did... now what? Can someone else hand this in?

"Lefty politics" is something that's impacted the USA

That is very different, however. When you talk of "lefty" in the USA, that is what you would definitively consider "conservative" here. Which is OK. I would vote for these lefties!

But sadly that's something that does not exist at all any more e.g. in Germany. We have a government that consists of a "conservative on paper" left party and a left socialdemocrat party. Then there is an ultra-left party aiming to destroy the establishment (not a joke, sadly... and people still vote for them) and an ultra-ultra left party which is a rebranding of the former socialist/communist party of East Germany (whose government back then has been officially labelled as "unlawful").

If you are not OK with a destructive left-far-left anarchy course, then the Leave-EU party or the Nazi-Party are your only choices. Which is a problem because for that reason not few people (me included) actually vote for Leave-EU although that is absolutely not what they want. But it is far less evil than the other choices, and you have to vote for someone. There is only the faint hope that the "conservative on paper" party maybe, just maybe, realizes something is going wrong, and they need to slightly adjust their course to something sane again.
The problem is, it can happen that some day not far away, we may get a similar result like the British did in their referendum, and then everybody will say: "Wait a moment, leave Europe? I didn't think you were serious!".

The level of corruption is an entirely different one in Europe compared to the USA, too (and that's telling!). I find it already insulting when a socialist who is so obese that he barely fits through a doorframe (typical worker, eh?) claims 18k per month and speaks of "more social justice" and then secretly increases his salary again during the soccer EM while nobody is paying attention. But yeah, Germany can afford, no worries. Economy does well.
Other than in France where, as Le Canard Enchainé reported, the socialist president spends 9,895€ of tax payer money per month on getting his hair cut (WTF?) and lives as if he was Louis XIV. But yeah, there's not enough money for schools and universities, or healthcare. Or for the poor. Oh, we urgently need to raise taxes.

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.

Oh, ok!
A lot of people deliberately use words like "criminals" or "illegals" instead of "refugees" or "asylum seekers". A fugitive is a criminal who is fleeing from the police - so I thought you were slandering the refugees, in a typical far-right manner :lol:

Well, in german there is not seperate word for a fugitive or refugee. There is a refugee (Flüchtling), and then there is the criminal who is fleeing ("flüchtiger Krimineller"). There might be the term "Flüchtender", which might be translated to fugitive, but then that is not very common, and pretty close to the german word for refugee.

Even some dictionaries got it wrong (one of the translations from dict.leo.org for "fugitive" is "Flüchtling" (refugee))...

I have nothing against the refugees, really. They are poor sods that need all the help they can get. I am just unsure if europe is doing the right thing currently, ESPECIALLY given how the far right is abusing the situation.

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.

South Vietnamese were slaughtered en masse/forced into North Korean style labour camps/executed and worked to death when we pulled out. There were 2 competing thoughts in the USA. The first was to push into North Vietnam and capture the country. The second was to pull out entirely. The government in it's wisdom tried to please both sides by fortifying South Vietnam and largely ignoring North Vietnam, which annoyed both sides.

After a while of this, the American public was mostly war weary, so we left our allies to die. If we capture North Vietnam it would have been a safer withdrawl as the South Vietnamese army would fight the Vietcong instead of us, and they wouldn't have to contend with the superior Russian-backed North Vietnamese army.

The Korean war could certainly have been won. Which option would have hurt North Korea more in the long term, a nuke on Pyongyang or decades of the Kim dynasty?

The correct response would have been to remove North Korea from the fight ASAP then focus on China until they withdraw. With how China turned out, the world would probably be better off with their government deposed as well, really.

Well if you go back further than that, the USA was propping up the authoritarian dictatorship and allowing them to exist.

This is the real issue when these events start... The USA has an awful track record when installing dictators in areas that have sectarian violence. Most of our issues could be resolved if we'd either get better at it, or stay out entirely.

As for Vietnam's market, it's in a pretty good condition, I think they made the choice to take IMF loans knowing that it was for the best, and it seems to have been. At least, it's certainly better than if the government was in a total command economy.

Trump is more American than Captain America and Guile combined.

He's that American.

(Also, too many people fail to realize they have other elected officials and ballot measures other than POTUS. Those who vote, always take some time to educate yourself, print out a complete copy of what will be on your local ballot, and make informed decisions. And if you don't bother to educate yourself on an issue or person, please don't vote on that line.)

Issue or person? Literally everyone I know votes by party not by person. I think that is the problem, people see which party closely mirrors their views and votes for the party instead of issues or persons.

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.

South Vietnamese were slaughtered en masse/forced into North Korean style labour camps/executed and worked to death when we pulled out. There were 2 competing thoughts in the USA. The first was to push into North Vietnam and capture the country. The second was to pull out entirely. The government in it's wisdom tried to please both sides by fortifying South Vietnam and largely ignoring North Vietnam, which annoyed both sides.

After a while of this, the American public was mostly war weary, so we left our allies to die. If we capture North Vietnam it would have been a safer withdrawl as the South Vietnamese army would fight the Vietcong instead of us, and they wouldn't have to contend with the superior Russian-backed North Vietnamese army.

The Korean war could certainly have been won. Which option would have hurt North Korea more in the long term, a nuke on Pyongyang or decades of the Kim dynasty?

The correct response would have been to remove North Korea from the fight ASAP then focus on China until they withdraw. With how China turned out, the world would probably be better off with their government deposed as well, really.

Well, what would have the difference been if the US would have never attacked in case of 'Nam? And really, I think the war has shown long enough that there was no way in the world the US could have won this war with conventional weapons... and I am getting to nukes later.

So really, pulling out of Vietnam was the only sane decision of the US in this whole war. The war was the disaster, not pulling out. Unfortunate for the Vietnamese getting slaughtered. Would they have been better off with US not intervening at all?

Yes, maybe if the US would have stayed, and continued to occupy south Vietnam, less people would have died... but then, even the resources of the biggest superpower at the time are not endless, and they exhausted all the "moral resources" by trying to do more than just "hold the line" in vietnam for years by then.

Nuking North Korea... really? You think that would have been a good idea?

Sh*t like that was a "good idea" (if we ignore the fact you are killing thousands of people for little to no gain) when the US was the only nuclear power. Today its called "suicide"...

The soviets already had their own atomic bombs at the time. The chinese were still good allies.

You really think the soviets would have watched the US bombing their communist allies in asia? I would bet, under these conditions maybe the soviets would have given the chinese access to the atomic bomb, just to make sure the US stop there. And given how adamant the chinese were to not let all of Korea become capitalistic and have the US at their borders, who knows what would have happened? Maybe the soviets would have been drawn into the conflict? Maybe the chinese would also have dropped a bomb on US held territory? World War III?

No, nobody at the time was stupid enough to REALLY risk a nuclear warfare. The whole longterm effects weren't wellknown then, and the bombs were just becoming deadly efficient weapons of mas destructions they are today. The superpowers were still adamant they could harvest nuclear weapons somehow, for conventional warfare, without triggering the doomsday effect of a nuclear retaliation war. Hence the nuclear artillery shell and stupid "tactical nukes" like that.

But even then, the risk of an escalation of the war was most probably too much for the US generals.

And then there is another thing. How do you nuke a country like China, at a time were a) China had no real industrial center, and b) the US had a far too small nuclear arsenal to nuke even 1% of China? Are you hopeing they will just drop their weapons and give up once you blow one of their capitals sky high? What is a body count of 100'000 people to a country of around 0.5 Billion, led by a mad nutjob that rather would lead his whole country into their worst crisis and slaughter thousands than to admit haveing made a planning mistake?

So yeah, in the end, nuclear weapons wouldn't be as effective as they were against a weakened japan. And the last thing anyone wanted was yet another world war.

The US never really had a choice but fight until they gained enough territory to call it a partial victory.

Literally everyone I know votes by party not by person.

Probably a regional thing. Around here there are public vocal jokes made every year about the 'straight party' options required to be on the ballot, and there are widely circulated quips about how only idiots and lemmings would use them.

I figure the biggest benefit is that those who pick a single party at the top of the ballot and then walk out of voting will skip any ballot issues and non-partisan races. For us that means school boards, city councils, judges, bond issues, and more. That's a good thing, because if you aren't educated about the issues you shouldn't be voting on them.