Biden’s endless wars

[dukkha]

Biden’s overall record is one of foreign policy interventionism, with the notable exception of a vote against the 1991 Persian Gulf War — and he says that regrets that vote now.
He was a supporter of the 1999 war on Serbia, which nearly brought the US and Russia into direct conflict and discredited the relatively easy-going foreign policy of Boris Yeltsin, an important element in the rise of Vladimir Putin and a more assertive Russian strategy.
Obama himself was less hawkish than Biden, however — and he still chose to go to war in Libya. Biden seeks to camouflage his military interventionism by pointing to his checkered voting record: sure, he voted for the Iraq War, but he also voted against the 2007 surge. Isn’t that enough to earn him a pass? ‘Come on, man,’ as Biden likes to say.

But the only thing coming on if Biden wins is another round of hopeless foreign interventionism and nation-building.
His individual votes are damning enough. Still more damning is the philosophy behind them.
Joe Biden is an archetypal liberal interventionist of the post-Cold War variety. He understands war in the same terms as domestic policy: as an occasion to expand the power wielded by experts in Washington, whose moral and rational qualifications are beyond question — no matter how disastrous the consequences of their policies.
Indeed, foreign policy sees modern liberalism at its most extreme: in domestic politics there is always the risk that technocrats will be frustrated in their attempts to remake other people’s lives by opposition from Congress or the states or public opinion or the rule of law itself.
But in foreign policy, such constraints are weak, when they exist at all. Congress is rarely effective at stopping wars before they begin — the one contemplated by Obama in Syria is an arguable exception — the public is also less likely to resist instinctively to technocratic overreach that has no immediate, direct effect on most citizens’ lives.
The states have no say in foreign policy, and the rule of law among nations is a fiction that can never check the abuses of liberal imperialists; on the contrary, they abuse the notion of such law to authorize their bloody experiments upon hapless foreign peoples. It’s a curious thing: liberals themselves inflict arbitrary violence upon peoples who get no vote on what they are to suffer, even as liberals justify their wars by deploring the injustice of regimes that inflict arbitrary violence and deny their subjects the right to vote.

Non-interventionist liberalism, in either its progressive or libertarian varieties, is hardly in a position to exercise an internal restraint upon the humanitarian ambitions of a Biden-Harris administration.
Those elite progressives who do think of themselves as antiwar tend to put equal or greater emphasis on an internationalist campaign they are eager to fight — a war on the weather, or ‘climate change’.
To this end, they want American sovereignty to be subordinate to international climate agreements, and they are willing to use whatever leverage they can wield within a Democratic administration to press for this priority.
But you cannot have two first priorities. If backing a Democratic president who does launch a military campaign against some benighted country — as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did — is the price to pay for getting a Democratic president who also pursues climate-change compacts, what progressive is going to balk?
What progressive can even think of placing mere peace above a cause that progressives believe is literally saving the planet? If World War Two or the Civil War was a necessary war, then any war that’s a collateral consequence of doing what’s necessary to save the earth itself has to seem acceptable. Apocalyptic ideas have consequences.
https://spectator.us/joe-biden-endle...nistan-serbia/

[dukkha]

Barack Obama, a Democrat with stronger antiwar tendencies than Biden, was little inclined to resist the groupthink.
Washington’s libertarian think-tank theorists of foreign policy have no way to infiltrate the group mind of a Democratic administration; yet they find Republican nationalism so distasteful that many of them are rooting for Biden anyway. Their premises align more closely with the right, but their peer group aligns with the attitudes of the academic left.

Informed voters know that when they cast their ballots for a candidate, they are also casting their ballot for the candidate’s personnel — and for the ideology that binds the candidate’s coalition. The ideology that binds together Joe Biden and the Democratic party is activist liberalism, at home and abroad.
Trump is highly unusual in representing a break with the antecedent ideology of his party: a break with the disastrous neoconservatism of the Bush clan, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. President Trump is in many ways a break with ideology altogether, yet there is a central thread to his foreign policy: a pursuit of America’s interests through bold and creative diplomacy, coupled with the effective use of force to achieve limited, realistic objectives. This new, nationalist realism is the best hope for an end to liberalism’s endless wars, and it’s a hope that rests with the reelection of Donald Trump.

[gemini104104]

Biden’s overall record is one of foreign policy interventionism, with the notable exception of a vote against the 1991 Persian Gulf War — and he says that regrets that vote now.
He was a supporter of the 1999 war on Serbia, which nearly brought the US and Russia into direct conflict and discredited the relatively easy-going foreign policy of Boris Yeltsin, an important element in the rise of Vladimir Putin and a more assertive Russian strategy.
Obama himself was less hawkish than Biden, however — and he still chose to go to war in Libya. Biden seeks to camouflage his military interventionism by pointing to his checkered voting record: sure, he voted for the Iraq War, but he also voted against the 2007 surge. Isn’t that enough to earn him a pass? ‘Come on, man,’ as Biden likes to say.

But the only thing coming on if Biden wins is another round of hopeless foreign interventionism and nation-building.
His individual votes are damning enough. Still more damning is the philosophy behind them.
Joe Biden is an archetypal liberal interventionist of the post-Cold War variety. He understands war in the same terms as domestic policy: as an occasion to expand the power wielded by experts in Washington, whose moral and rational qualifications are beyond question — no matter how disastrous the consequences of their policies.
Indeed, foreign policy sees modern liberalism at its most extreme: in domestic politics there is always the risk that technocrats will be frustrated in their attempts to remake other people’s lives by opposition from Congress or the states or public opinion or the rule of law itself.
But in foreign policy, such constraints are weak, when they exist at all. Congress is rarely effective at stopping wars before they begin — the one contemplated by Obama in Syria is an arguable exception — the public is also less likely to resist instinctively to technocratic overreach that has no immediate, direct effect on most citizens’ lives.
The states have no say in foreign policy, and the rule of law among nations is a fiction that can never check the abuses of liberal imperialists; on the contrary, they abuse the notion of such law to authorize their bloody experiments upon hapless foreign peoples. It’s a curious thing: liberals themselves inflict arbitrary violence upon peoples who get no vote on what they are to suffer, even as liberals justify their wars by deploring the injustice of regimes that inflict arbitrary violence and deny their subjects the right to vote.

Non-interventionist liberalism, in either its progressive or libertarian varieties, is hardly in a position to exercise an internal restraint upon the humanitarian ambitions of a Biden-Harris administration.
Those elite progressives who do think of themselves as antiwar tend to put equal or greater emphasis on an internationalist campaign they are eager to fight — a war on the weather, or ‘climate change’.
To this end, they want American sovereignty to be subordinate to international climate agreements, and they are willing to use whatever leverage they can wield within a Democratic administration to press for this priority.
But you cannot have two first priorities. If backing a Democratic president who does launch a military campaign against some benighted country — as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did — is the price to pay for getting a Democratic president who also pursues climate-change compacts, what progressive is going to balk?
What progressive can even think of placing mere peace above a cause that progressives believe is literally saving the planet? If World War Two or the Civil War was a necessary war, then any war that’s a collateral consequence of doing what’s necessary to save the earth itself has to seem acceptable. Apocalyptic ideas have consequences.
https://spectator.us/joe-biden-endle...nistan-serbia/

Bullshit, considering your lawlessly hacked in Putin bitch tRump, his sold out republicans and that disgraced half repuke part of SCOTUS are engaging in their own civil war against Democracy, humanity and anything else of a civilized nature. Now take that down to the gutter with you to ponder on if you have the intellect to do so, which is highly doubtful.

[Darth Omar]

So, Biden is basically 0-5 on the last major foreign issues.

How comforting.

[dukkha]

So, Biden is basically 0-5 on the last major foreign issues.How comforting.

Gates: Biden Has Been Wrong On Nearly Every Major Foreign Policy Question
https://usagag.com/2020/09/17/biden-...licy-question/

[Darth Omar]

Gates: Biden Has Been Wrong On Nearly Every Major Foreign Policy Question
https://usagag.com/2020/09/17/biden-...licy-question/

The Lap Dog media made foreign policy nearly a non-issue.

Funny how that works.

[katzgar]

Biden’s overall record is one of foreign policy interventionism, with the notable exception of a vote against the 1991 Persian Gulf War — and he says that regrets that vote now.
He was a supporter of the 1999 war on Serbia, which nearly brought the US and Russia into direct conflict and discredited the relatively easy-going foreign policy of Boris Yeltsin, an important element in the rise of Vladimir Putin and a more assertive Russian strategy.
Obama himself was less hawkish than Biden, however — and he still chose to go to war in Libya. Biden seeks to camouflage his military interventionism by pointing to his checkered voting record: sure, he voted for the Iraq War, but he also voted against the 2007 surge. Isn’t that enough to earn him a pass? ‘Come on, man,’ as Biden likes to say.

But the only thing coming on if Biden wins is another round of hopeless foreign interventionism and nation-building.
His individual votes are damning enough. Still more damning is the philosophy behind them.
Joe Biden is an archetypal liberal interventionist of the post-Cold War variety. He understands war in the same terms as domestic policy: as an occasion to expand the power wielded by experts in Washington, whose moral and rational qualifications are beyond question — no matter how disastrous the consequences of their policies.
Indeed, foreign policy sees modern liberalism at its most extreme: in domestic politics there is always the risk that technocrats will be frustrated in their attempts to remake other people’s lives by opposition from Congress or the states or public opinion or the rule of law itself.
But in foreign policy, such constraints are weak, when they exist at all. Congress is rarely effective at stopping wars before they begin — the one contemplated by Obama in Syria is an arguable exception — the public is also less likely to resist instinctively to technocratic overreach that has no immediate, direct effect on most citizens’ lives.
The states have no say in foreign policy, and the rule of law among nations is a fiction that can never check the abuses of liberal imperialists; on the contrary, they abuse the notion of such law to authorize their bloody experiments upon hapless foreign peoples. It’s a curious thing: liberals themselves inflict arbitrary violence upon peoples who get no vote on what they are to suffer, even as liberals justify their wars by deploring the injustice of regimes that inflict arbitrary violence and deny their subjects the right to vote.

Non-interventionist liberalism, in either its progressive or libertarian varieties, is hardly in a position to exercise an internal restraint upon the humanitarian ambitions of a Biden-Harris administration.
Those elite progressives who do think of themselves as antiwar tend to put equal or greater emphasis on an internationalist campaign they are eager to fight — a war on the weather, or ‘climate change’.
To this end, they want American sovereignty to be subordinate to international climate agreements, and they are willing to use whatever leverage they can wield within a Democratic administration to press for this priority.
But you cannot have two first priorities. If backing a Democratic president who does launch a military campaign against some benighted country — as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did — is the price to pay for getting a Democratic president who also pursues climate-change compacts, what progressive is going to balk?
What progressive can even think of placing mere peace above a cause that progressives believe is literally saving the planet? If World War Two or the Civil War was a necessary war, then any war that’s a collateral consequence of doing what’s necessary to save the earth itself has to seem acceptable. Apocalyptic ideas have consequences.
https://spectator.us/joe-biden-endle...nistan-serbia/

all you got left is desperation

[dukkha]

The Lap Dog media made foreign policy nearly a non-issue.

Funny how that works.

that was the presidential debate commission as well - not 1 word on the ME peace deals.
I saw something about some media service where Trump gets 92% bad coverage and Biden 66% good

Biden was never asked about Libya or Iraq as well

[Darth Omar]

that was the presidential debate commission as well - not 1 word on the ME peace deals.
I saw something about some media service where Trump gets 92% bad coverage and Biden 66% good

Biden was never asked about Libya or Iraq as well

What the hell could he say lol?

Nearly half a century in government and nothing to show for it but some lucrative foreign connections.

I’m probably being overly optimistic, but I have a hunch the media may have finally gone too far. The bias statistics you mentioned are old news. But this bit with *bare naked censorship* over the Biden emails is so transparent it’s arguably a bigger story than the emails themselves.

How can they possibly have any credibility left with anyone with half an ounce of objectivity? Shameful doesn’t describe it. Closer to criminal.

[Trumpet]

This is an opinion article.

[Darth Omar]

This is an opinion article.

Lol ok.

In your opinion, what is Biden’s best foreign policy win?

[dukkha]

What the hell could he say lol?

Nearly half a century in government and nothing to show for it but some lucrative foreign connections.

I’m probably being overly optimistic, but I have a hunch the media may have finally gone too far. The bias statistics you mentioned are old news. But this bit with *bare naked censorship* over the Biden emails is so transparent it’s arguably a bigger story than the emails themselves.

How can they possibly have any credibility left with anyone with half an ounce of objectivity? Shameful doesn’t describe it. Closer to criminal.

well it doesnt matter for the election -it might be impeachable
Twitter and FB are supposed to testify today? and as far as I know the NYP is still banned from Twitter

[PostmodernProphet]

Lol ok.

In your opinion, what is Biden’s best foreign policy win?

making Wilmington, Delaware the capital of Israel..........people have been promising to do so for fifty years now someone has finally done it......

[Bigdog]

This is an opinion article.

Obama/Biden left Pres. Trump a foreign policy mess.

[Micawber]

He isn't even potus yet. Pretty ez to prove this is a lie, amirite?