so much for draining the swamp

[Dill]

(11-17-2016, 11:54 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Well Trumps a problem solver so yeah 

Are you confusing Pinochet with Galtieri?

Either way, you might be making a good point here. A large segment of Trump's constituency may be asking for authoritarian governance--a one party state with a "strong" leader.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-19-2016, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: You claim the office of presidency changes people because Obama said so. So Trump won't do much damage. I say Obama's point only only applies to people who know what they are doing and have reasonably good judgment already. That's not trump.

YES!!!

See if you can find the partisan butthurt in what you wrote.  I will clue you in - it's the third and fourth sentence.

If you want to talk about how Obama was inexperienced with an agenda...and largely failed for various reasons.....And how despite that the world didn't blow up.

Then, yes, come over here and have a seat next to Obama, I mean Trump.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-19-2016, 01:12 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You're arguing the invasion and nation building are the same? That's beyond absurd.

Yes, absolutely.

If you're not a moron, when you depose a leader then you are building a nation.  Are you still confused?

[Dill]

(11-20-2016, 02:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yes, absolutely.

If you're not a moron, when you depose a leader then you are building a nation.  Are you still confused?

One can depose a leader for many reasons, and it can have many different results--including no nation building.

In the context of US foreign policy over the last 40 years, "Nation building" (as distinct from "state-building") refers to the process of restoring a  country's economy  after removing an undesired leader. It involves building roads and schools and hospitals. It is a policy decided upon and carried out by the deposing power.

Not all countries who depose another's leader do that. And deposing a leader does not accomplish any of that automatically, i.e., it does
not automatically build schools and roads.

Still further, one may nation build without deposing a leader, as the UN and US did in Somallia in the 90s.

Even if you conflate nation building and state building, Republicans have generally opposed nation building while favoring regime change. Are they still confused?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2016, 02:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yes, absolutely.

If you're not a moron, when you depose a leader then you are building a nation.  Are you still confused?

Do you know why apples are called apples, not oranges?  And why oranges are called oranges, not apples?  Because apples and oranges aren't the same. Thus the idiom about comparing apples and oranges. 

Did we rebuild Panama after we invaded and deposed Noriega?  No. Did we invade Bosnia or Kosovo before we assisted with nation building?  No. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-20-2016, 02:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yes, absolutely.

If you're not a moron, when you depose a leader then you are building a nation.  Are you still confused?

I would say 90% of the time, in practice, the former leads to the latter, but if you invade and are helping a rebelling force already established within the nation, you are not necessarily nation building. I think not being involved in the actual structuring of the constitution and government is key in it not being nation building.



HOWEVER..., devil's advocate, one can then argue that providing the means for deposing of the former government is an indirect form of being involved in the actual structuring of the new government. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 01:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you know why apples are called apples, not oranges?  And why oranges are called oranges, not apples?  Because apples and oranges aren't the same. Thus the idiom about comparing apples and oranges. 

Did we rebuild Panama after we invaded and deposed Noriega?  No. Did we invade Bosnia or Kosovo before we assisted with nation building?  No. 

Just an FYI.
We did give Panama over 1Billion in aid after we left to help them rebuild.
Bosnia was different, but they still received money from SEED afterwards to help rebuild.
The EU took the lead on rebuilding Kosovo, but we did send over 500 mil to help with that.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-21-2016, 01:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Just an FYI.
We did give Panama over 1Billion in aid after we left to help them rebuild.
Bosnia was different, but they still received money from SEED afterwards to help rebuild.
The EU took the lead on rebuilding Kosovo, but we did send over 500 mil to help with that.

Is money the only thing required to build a nation? No. Israel receives more than $1billion/year in US foreign aid. Did we rebuild Israel because we gave them money?  No. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 06:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is money the only thing required to build a nation? No. Israel receives more than $1billion/year in US foreign aid. Did we rebuild Israel because we gave them money?  No. 

Absolutely not the only thing involved in rebuilding. 
Money does help get a country on the fast track to recovering though. 

In the 3 examples provided, we specifically marked money for Panama aid in rebuilding.

The annual money we give to Israel is not for rebuilding, it's for defensive purposes. 

So you are trying to compare apples to oranges there.

[Dill]

(11-21-2016, 01:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Just an FYI.
We did give Panama over 1Billion in aid after we left to help them rebuild.
Bosnia was different, but they still received money from SEED afterwards to help rebuild.
The EU took the lead on rebuilding Kosovo, but we did send over 500 mil to help with that.

Aid does not equal nation building.

This discussion got me thinking of historical examples.

In 37 BCE, the Roman senate declared Herod the Great king of Judea and lent him aid in overthrowing Antigonus II. Judea was already a client state, but I still call that regime change since it was also the end of the Hasemonean Dynasty and founding of the Herodian. But far from offering "aid" or otherwise interfering in Judean government, the Romans just continued to exact tribute and taxes. This seems an example of regime change without nation building. I could multiply examples here from throughout the ancient world. A major power dethrones a minor king and replaces him with someone who understands he is to pay tribute and trade on favorable terms. Everything else remains the same in the regime-changed country.

WWI certainly effected regime change in Germany and Austria-Hungary, though the Allies themselves did not directly depose/kill the leaders of the Central Powers. What followed was not exactly nation-building or aid--quite the opposite as the Central Powers were saddled with reparations.

If you change a country's "regime" and then force it to pay you money, exhausting its economy, are you automatically nation building? You would have to be if regime change and nation building are the same thing.

Most historians would agree that the decision to nation build in Germany and Japan after WWII was connected to the refusal to national build after WWI, which in great part fueled German desire for a revenge war.

[Dill]

(11-20-2016, 02:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: YES!!!

See if you can find the partisan butthurt in what you wrote.  I will clue you in - it's the third and fourth sentence.

If you want to talk about how Obama was inexperienced with an agenda...and largely failed for various reasons.....And how despite that the world didn't blow up.

Then, yes, come over here and have a seat next to Obama, I mean Trump.

How are you defining "failed"? Do you have an example of a successful presidency at least?

Your take on this, apparently, is that both Obama and Trump were  simply "inexperienced" when elected.  The "failed" president, a former senator and constitutional lawyer, didn't blow up the world, so why worry about the guy who strode onto the international stage promising to bomb other countries, to sue people who opposed him, to ban Muslims and to tear up treaties, all while affirming torture and nukes were back on the table.  Embracing alt-right tactics, he bullies reporters and encourages his followers to harass them as well. Today he is taking time off from using the office of the presidency to advance private business in foreign countries to tweet up a storm against Saturday Night Live and demand an apology from the cast of Hamilton.

Only "partisan butthurt" could manufacture a difference between the two situations, if I understand you. "Career staffers" and the largeness of the office will contain Trump's rough edges--which are considerably rougher than W's were.

I suggest we agree to disagree for now; the next two years--or less-- will prove one of us right.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-22-2016, 01:31 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Absolutely not the only thing involved in rebuilding. 
Money does help get a country on the fast track to recovering though. 

In the 3 examples provided, we specifically marked money for Panama aid in rebuilding.

The annual money we give to Israel is not for rebuilding, it's for defensive purposes. 

So you are trying to compare apples to oranges there.

Panama's GDP dropped approximately 25% due to US sanctions during the two years prior to the invasion. The estimated economic impact to Panama due to the invasion was between $1-2 billion dollars. Over half of that $1 billion aid package was in the form of loan payments or loan guarantees of defaulted loans caused by the economic sanctions. The remainder wasn't even enough to cover the cost of the shit we broke. Panama couldn't even break even with $1 billion in aid (especially when over half went to banks.)

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-07/news/mn-251_1_aid-package

Forty-two million dollars went to aid a humanitarian "emergency" while $125 million went to pay Panama's debts to The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.  I don't know about you, but when I'm helping a friend in need of food, water, shelter, medical care, and sanitation; the first thing I think of is, "Oh, shit!  Their credit rating!  I better get that check to the bank in the mail." C'mon, man. 

By comparison, we have spent more than $60 billion in Iraq. We have lost about $6 billion. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I forgot to ask, when we were selling arms to Iran to fund the Contras who were we trying to depose and which nation were we building?

If we installed Saddam and Noriega in power, is it really regime change when we install _________ in power to replace Uncle Sam's Stooges?  The guy who replaced Saddam is (at least partly) responsible for a sectarian civil war. The guy who replaced Noriega was involved in drug money laundering. Seems more like business as usual.

[Dill]

(11-20-2016, 02:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yes, absolutely.
If you're not a moron, when you depose a leader then you are building a nation.  Are you still confused?

I still have some questions about that.

When the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, they deposed the entire government, destroyed the major cities, and enslaved the population. Had they won the war, Poland would have been eventually ethnically cleansed of Poles.

That could be building the German nation, I guess, since they robbed Poland of food and machinery--anything of value--and used it to enrich and strengthen the Reich.

But I don't think they were building the Polish nation. Or what do you mean by "build"?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-22-2016, 04:30 AM)Dill Wrote: I still have some questions about that.

When the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, they deposed the entire government, destroyed the major cities, and enslaved the population. Had they won the war, Poland would have been eventually ethnically cleansed of Poles.

That could be building the German nation, I guess, since they robbed Poland of food and machinery--anything of value--and used it to enrich and strengthen the Reich.

But I don't think they were building the Polish nation. Or what do you mean by "build"?

Probably something similar to rebuilding the Seminole Nation at Florida State.