I hope my beloved Free Press staff has seen the embarrassing Covid guidelines for this venue. Still acting like it's 2021 again. Not good. But I love Free Press enough to soldier on, here.
Bari, where this debate was held has a direct correlation on the yes/no voting in my opinion. I have family who live in that area and have visited there several times for years. Plus hearing others talk about their impression of the bubbled world that area enjoys?? or is trapped in??. And by the way, I live in a bubble too in my little above average world. In different areas of the country, I make-up it would have been more 50/50 or 60/40 or 40/60 ish. And thank you for the conversation so good for all of us! I felt at times I was hearing a version of "let them eat cake".
This debate is the same as the one in the 1930s, in which the isolationists argued that the US should stay clear of foreign commitments. The consequences of such a policy now will be no different than they were in the 1930s - the US will be forced later into a bigger, costlier, and more deadlier war - with fewer allies.
It would be interesting to know how many people actually changed their mind? Concerning the last debate, did some of the original 71% become part of the final 28%? And visa versa. Great debate it made me think…but didn’t change my mind. I think the dream is alive and needs some work to keep it alive and well.
First Iraq war was a bombing run. Balkans war was waiting for the dough boys to get up and not really american. What the is DR? Isis morphed into the Taliban, Second Iraq war where you actually put boots on the ground. Partial success. really? WOMD. failure. Korea, the Chinese out gunned you. Afghanistan(wonderful people live here) A fucken pointless failure by a pointless government "you are with us or against us". Now controlled by the Taliban and US ammo, Thank you Trump for making another awesome deal and reducing the troops by 75%.
Vietnam, beautiful country, wonderful people. Maybe you helped which is something. Sucked real hard at making a war.
A dominant power will always exist. That is just human nature. A dominant power whose only interest is to ensure world stability is ideal. That power cannot be taken away by force. It can easily be taken away through psychological manipulation.
Would you rather BRICS and their might makes right foreign policies, or a US guided NATO mission to ensure freedom of navigation and access to trade for everyone? Post WWII interventionism has given us the first rules based world order, wealth and progress we never could’ve dreamed, made us THE indispensable nation, along with making sure the petrodollar and US minted currency is the fiat currency of the world and English is the language of trade. French is still the language of diplomacy I suppose. But ceding our control of so many institutions and trade routes we have curated over a century of economic growth and history makes no sense to our vital interests both strategic and economic. People advocating for this have a poor understanding of the heft our position has, the real costs of maintaining a nation, and where the majority of our funding goes. Assuming we pull back the fraction of revenue we spend on military advancement, strategic control, and defense spending in general, will open up the world to more opportunities to challenge our hegemony and will devastate our economy.
Thank you TFP for working so hard to offer context and reasoned analysis of major issues through these thoughtful debates between/among knowledgeable individuals. Most of us are sick and tired of screeching voices that tell us how and what we are supposed to think without acknowledging the complexities of the issues and the realities that accompany various choices. There are no magic solutions, and we citizens (voters) need to hear more facts (costs, benefits, trade-offs) and informed perspectives so the we can decide which actions are in the best interests of the country as a whole and our future as a democratic republic. Real debate, not shouting matches, can help us assess policy choices and political candidates beyond the inane culture wars issues that seem to dominate MSM. So keep up the good work!
Matt gets angry when debating. He did OK in the Munk debate but his side was carried by the brilliant Douglas Murray. He has debated Bret before and lost his cool a bit. He is a better writer than a speaker.
Glen Greenwald…..Taibbi will be more focused on Russia and Ukraine (he’s more of a Russia expert) where Glen would be more focused on America’s support for Israel BUT as we’ve seen over the last eleven months….any critique of Israel is not welcome at the “Free Press”.
I hope my beloved Free Press staff has seen the embarrassing Covid guidelines for this venue. Still acting like it's 2021 again. Not good. But I love Free Press enough to soldier on, here.
The "NEW YORK TIMES" view???.......why do we read THE FREE PRESS
NYC? Sorry, I have avoided that place at all costs since DeBlasio began the steep decline it is now in.
I'll tune in however and hope to hear some consensus on real sharing of responsibilities amongst our so called Alliances.
Bari, where this debate was held has a direct correlation on the yes/no voting in my opinion. I have family who live in that area and have visited there several times for years. Plus hearing others talk about their impression of the bubbled world that area enjoys?? or is trapped in??. And by the way, I live in a bubble too in my little above average world. In different areas of the country, I make-up it would have been more 50/50 or 60/40 or 40/60 ish. And thank you for the conversation so good for all of us! I felt at times I was hearing a version of "let them eat cake".
Nellie, loved you voice narrating the video clip.
Please bring one of these events to Texas
This debate is the same as the one in the 1930s, in which the isolationists argued that the US should stay clear of foreign commitments. The consequences of such a policy now will be no different than they were in the 1930s - the US will be forced later into a bigger, costlier, and more deadlier war - with fewer allies.
What about offering this as a paid streaming option?
It would be interesting to know how many people actually changed their mind? Concerning the last debate, did some of the original 71% become part of the final 28%? And visa versa. Great debate it made me think…but didn’t change my mind. I think the dream is alive and needs some work to keep it alive and well.
Can’t wait!
oh thanks Peter.
First Iraq war was a bombing run. Balkans war was waiting for the dough boys to get up and not really american. What the is DR? Isis morphed into the Taliban, Second Iraq war where you actually put boots on the ground. Partial success. really? WOMD. failure. Korea, the Chinese out gunned you. Afghanistan(wonderful people live here) A fucken pointless failure by a pointless government "you are with us or against us". Now controlled by the Taliban and US ammo, Thank you Trump for making another awesome deal and reducing the troops by 75%.
Vietnam, beautiful country, wonderful people. Maybe you helped which is something. Sucked real hard at making a war.
Libya. Who cares.
Cheers
A dominant power will always exist. That is just human nature. A dominant power whose only interest is to ensure world stability is ideal. That power cannot be taken away by force. It can easily be taken away through psychological manipulation.
But does the dominant power have to be so callous and stupid in its interventions?
Can't be there in person so I'm looking forward to what comes out of this here on TFP.
How to livestream??
Would you rather BRICS and their might makes right foreign policies, or a US guided NATO mission to ensure freedom of navigation and access to trade for everyone? Post WWII interventionism has given us the first rules based world order, wealth and progress we never could’ve dreamed, made us THE indispensable nation, along with making sure the petrodollar and US minted currency is the fiat currency of the world and English is the language of trade. French is still the language of diplomacy I suppose. But ceding our control of so many institutions and trade routes we have curated over a century of economic growth and history makes no sense to our vital interests both strategic and economic. People advocating for this have a poor understanding of the heft our position has, the real costs of maintaining a nation, and where the majority of our funding goes. Assuming we pull back the fraction of revenue we spend on military advancement, strategic control, and defense spending in general, will open up the world to more opportunities to challenge our hegemony and will devastate our economy.
Thank you TFP for working so hard to offer context and reasoned analysis of major issues through these thoughtful debates between/among knowledgeable individuals. Most of us are sick and tired of screeching voices that tell us how and what we are supposed to think without acknowledging the complexities of the issues and the realities that accompany various choices. There are no magic solutions, and we citizens (voters) need to hear more facts (costs, benefits, trade-offs) and informed perspectives so the we can decide which actions are in the best interests of the country as a whole and our future as a democratic republic. Real debate, not shouting matches, can help us assess policy choices and political candidates beyond the inane culture wars issues that seem to dominate MSM. So keep up the good work!
Now if only the same could happen in Congress.
Why Matt Taibbi? Should've got Dave Smith and Glen Greenwald but I'm guessing Greenwald is shunned by the "Free" Press these days....
Matt Taibbi is AMAZING and ARTICULATE and probably is better informed across a range of subjects than any of the others.....
Why not Matt Taibbi?
great writer, bad talker.
Matt gets angry when debating. He did OK in the Munk debate but his side was carried by the brilliant Douglas Murray. He has debated Bret before and lost his cool a bit. He is a better writer than a speaker.
Is there someone who you think is as up to speed as Taibbi on the subject who would do better? (honest question)
Glen Greenwald…..Taibbi will be more focused on Russia and Ukraine (he’s more of a Russia expert) where Glen would be more focused on America’s support for Israel BUT as we’ve seen over the last eleven months….any critique of Israel is not welcome at the “Free Press”.
Thoughtful, nuanced criticism, based on facts not speculation, of Israel would be welcomed at TFP, I believe. One seldom sees that anywhere.
I subscribe to both of these guys but haven't been tuning into Greenwald lately, just because I have too many subscriptions. I appreciate your input.