Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There are ways to help them with their problems short of invading them and killing a bunch of people, of course.

Gosh, I had no idea that there were.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

But that's pretty much what we did do a little bit later - the no-fly zones in Northern Iraq allowed the Kurds to essentially set up their own little autonomous region. And we didn't have to occupy Baghdad or mediate between tribes and factions and sectarian groups.

Kurdish autonomy has its own problems (just ask Turkey), but in any event there are significant differences. The Kurds were not seeking (or being asked to) overthrow Saddam, the Kurds did not have a natural ally next door that was a sworn enemy of Saddam, Kurdistan is much further away from where Iraqi armor and troops were, and (I believe) the Kurdish region is less intermingled than the region of the Shiite uprising. Saddam could tolerate Kurdish autonomy, but not anything resembling that among Shiites.

And it's ok to use pre-limited military means - it sometimes even works. See e.g. the former Yugoslavia (bombing and cruise missiles got the Serbs to the table, not the 82nd Airborne). But even if shooting down Saddam's helicopters ended up not working, it would have been worth it. Maybe GHWB shouldn't have encouraged the Shiites to rise, but once he did, a no-fly zone was really a no-brainer.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I thought we should have bombed Serbian artillery positions in Bosnia. But that looked much more like a military invasion. In Iraq, the result of using limited military means would likely have been a slower -- and, over time, much more significant -- slaughter, as Shiites killed Sunnis and Sunnis responded, without aircraft but with the other capacity of the Iraqi military.

You shoot down the helicopters. So the Republican Guard rolls out tanks and armored vehicles and artillery and machine guns. What then?

We should not have used any military means in Iraq --- either then or in 2003.

Sometimes we have to make a gesture towards preventing slaughter. I mean, could Clinton have stopped the massacres in Rwanda? No, but he could have (and I think has said that he *should* have) taken doable military action - supporting the French with logistics and transport, jamming the airwaves to prevent the government's radio station inciting and directing the mobs. And I realize that our interests prevent us from doing this (too many examples to list, but let's include our current unwillingness to even mention our objections to ethnic cleansing to the newly democratic government in Burma), but in Iraq it was in our interest, and in Rwanda it was not against our interest to do something.

We could have had some minimal impact in Rwanda, but I doubt much more. I don't think it was against our interests at the time, but I do think that efforts like this can have unpredictable and unintended consequences that are often not considered. That is exactly my concern in Iraq: I think we would have been drawn into a situation were ultimately we were stuck guaranteeing Shiite safety -- without being able to control how that safety was used, including whether it was used to expand Iran's influence.

I'm fine with recognizing the limits of our power and the need to not put American lives at risk unless necessary. I just think it's a sliding scale - logistical support is low risk, smart bombs and cruise misses a little more risk, shooting down helicopters a little more (though Iraq's air defenses had been wiped out at that point) - and all are far less risky than sending in ground troops, which really should be avoided as much as possible. Afghanistan 2001? Absolutely. Kuwait/Iraq 1990? Strong yes. Peacekeeping in Bosnia 1996? Probably (it ended up not requiring combat, but that's ex post facto). Panama 1989? Maybe other options, but I thought it was a reasonable decision. Grenada 1983? Um, post-Vietnam muscle flexing, but at least the medical students were happy to see the USMC. Iraq 2003? Nope.

You are looking only at risk to American lives. I am looking at risk to American policy and interests, and the risks that putting our thumb on the scale in a nation creates to the people of that nation. We've seen so many examples in recent years of how an uprising against a dictator can turn into a civil war among multiple factions that range from mildly tolerable to fucking ISIS, that I have to reject the notion that just shooting down Saddam's helicopters would have accomplished much of any lasting value, absent a much longer and stronger commitment that no one wanted (or should have wanted) to make.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Pope says Trump is "not Christian"!

Trump tweets that Pope is "disgraceful"!

We are living in a cartoon reality. While politics in this country had long ago pushed so far past the absurd that it made one long for the comforting normalcy of an Ionesco play, we have now reached the point where our political system is unparodyable. It's pure dada, albeit an unspeakably vile and infected form of dadaism. Which is one of the reasons I never visit this board. Ever.

I'm thanking the baby Jesus right now that Penske no longer is here to read you denigrate dadaism.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm thanking the baby Jesus right now that Penske no longer is here to read you denigrate dadaism.

This is not a Pope.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Gosh, I had no idea that there were.

I am glad I could enlighten you.

In further surprising news, it turns out Jesus wasn't a hater.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I cannot identify one Republican in office who I respect. Someone help me. Who's worth more than a spit in the bucket on the right?

TM

OK, I'm going to take up this challenge. Who would have thunk.

Charlie Baker? By the way, I hate Charlie Baker. He is a namby-pamby born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his mouth brahmin yankee good old boy. I'm not sure he gives a shit about anyone whose family wasn't here before the revolution and hasn't been coupon-clipping for generations. But, with one or two exceptions (see Syrian refugees), he stays away from the crazy, he's fairly intelligent, and he tends to think before he acts (but see exceptions). And after landing GE for Boston, he can stay in office as long as he wants.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

OK, I'm going to take up this challenge. Who would have thunk.

Charlie Baker? By the way, I hate Charlie Baker. He is a namby-pamby born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his mouth brahmin yankee good old boy. I'm not sure he gives a shit about anyone whose family wasn't here before the revolution and hasn't been coupon-clipping for generations. But, with one or two exceptions (see Syrian refugees), he stays away from the crazy, he's fairly intelligent, and he tends to think before he acts (but see exceptions). And after landing GE for Boston, he can stay in office as long as he wants.

I'll take your word for it. Don't know a damn thing about him.

I was hoping someone would point to a Senator or Congressman who wasn't completely fucking crazy and who has the balls to not carry the Republican company line when they know it's batshit crazy. Obviously Cruz does not qualify because (i) he's completely fucking crazy and (ii) when he breaks from the Republican party, it's always to do something even crazier.

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

OK, I'm going to take up this challenge. Who would have thunk.

Charlie Baker? By the way, I hate Charlie Baker. He is a namby-pamby born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his mouth brahmin yankee good old boy. I'm not sure he gives a shit about anyone whose family wasn't here before the revolution and hasn't been coupon-clipping for generations. But, with one or two exceptions (see Syrian refugees), he stays away from the crazy, he's fairly intelligent, and he tends to think before he acts (but see exceptions). And after landing GE for Boston, he can stay in office as long as he wants.

Is John Huntsman still a Republican? If it were pre-2000 he would be.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'll take your word for it. Don't know a damn thing about him.

I was hoping someone would point to a Senator or Congressman who wasn't completely fucking crazy and who has the balls to not carry the Republican company line when they know it's batshit crazy. Obviously Cruz does not qualify because (i) he's completely fucking crazy and (ii) when he breaks from the Republican party, it's always to do something even crazier.

TM

John Kasich. Lindsay Graham. And although he's not a current or former presidential candidate, Peter King. I'm sure there are others, but not too many on the national level, alas.

I think they all have issues (but then again I would think that because I was raised in an Irish Catholic worship-the-Kennedys-and-the-unions kind of family, and then grew into the Obama-loving Fabian that you all know and roll your eyes at), but I think they all have moments of sanity in which they call bullshit on some of the GOP's nonsense.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

John Kasich. Lindsay Graham. And although he's not a current or former presidential candidate, Peter King. I'm sure there are others, but not too many on the national level, alas.

I think they all have issues (but then again I would think that because I was raised in an Irish Catholic worship-the-Kennedys-and-the-unions kind of family, and then grew into the Obama-loving Fabian that you all know and roll your eyes at), but I think they all have moments of sanity in which they call bullshit on some of the GOP's nonsense.

I would anticipate that a Venn diagram set of Republicans acceptable to you would have a pretty high crossover with the set of Republicans I find repulsive. So I would totally agree with Kasich, Graham, McCain, Susan Collins.

Maybe former NM Governor Gary Johnson, but he's Libertarian now, and I kind of like him.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I would anticipate that a Venn diagram set of Republicans acceptable to you would have a pretty high crossover with the set of Republicans I find repulsive. So I would totally agree with Kasich, Graham, McCain, Susan Collins.

Maybe former NM Governor Gary Johnson, but he's Libertarian now, and I kind of like him.

Members of The Tuesday Group and Republican Main Street Partnership.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I would anticipate that a Venn diagram set of Republicans acceptable to you would have a pretty high crossover with the set of Republicans I find repulsive. So I would totally agree with Kasich, Graham, McCain, Susan Collins.

Maybe former NM Governor Gary Johnson, but he's Libertarian now, and I kind of like him.

I always had a soft spot for Bob Dole, too. The Bushes (well, at least GHWB and sometimes Jeb!) might qualify when in office, but not while campaigning.

And Warren Harding flat out knew how to par-tay, right? That lovable scamp was much better than that dour old Calvin Coolidge who followed him.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Is John Huntsman still a Republican? If it were pre-2000 he would be.

Huntsman was the first to come to mind for me, but TM was looking for office holders. So until he throws his hat in the ring for Mayor of NYC....

The list of Republicans I could see myself voting for is thin, but Huntsman and Colin Powell are at the top of it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Peter King

Nope. He's a piece of shit.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I would anticipate that a Venn diagram set of Republicans acceptable to you would have a pretty high crossover with the set of Republicans I find repulsive. So I would totally agree with Kasich, Graham, McCain, Susan Collins.

Maybe former NM Governor Gary Johnson, but he's Libertarian now, and I kind of like him.

The demise of the foreign policy/national security wing of the Republican party in the wake of Iraq has been a tragedy. Graham and McCain now spend most of their time saying things they know are stupid to curry favor with the xenophobes and hotheads. But, they are the ones who gave the neo-cons the keys to the toys, and look what they did with them.