|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43753 Posts
On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes?
Nuclear peace theory relies on MAD. MAD relies upon bombers constantly flying over the arctic, a system of allies hosting airbases around the world, ridiculous spending on military research, huge stockpiles of ICBMs, nuclear submarines and so forth. MAD cannot be separated from the United States. If you believe in nuclear peace then you have the US and USSR to thank for it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's always room for improvement and reflection when it comes to american foreign policy actions, despite what the alternative, worse evils might be. don't see the need to get defensive here.
|
On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes?
The nukes Moreover stop the other countries from useing nukes. The reason why the cold war never became hot is because the soviet war machine would have marched all over europe in a matter of weeks. The only solution to defend europe would have to nuke the soviet armies.
There are well over 200 nations that don't have nukes and are willing to bet that no one is going to start the apocolypse over a war between 2 non nuclear powers.
|
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fired back Thursday at those who have criticized him for demanding that any disaster aid package for Oklahoma tornado victims include offsets, or matching spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. The money is already available to help his constituents, Coburn argued, suggesting that lawmakers only want to pass an unpaid-for disaster aid package so they can tuck other unrelated items in it to benefit their home states.
"It's just typical Washington B.S.," Coburn said during an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "There's $11.6 billion sitting in a bank account waiting to help people in Oklahoma ... It's a crass political game because I was being asked these questions before we even pulled the dead people out of the rubble."
Coburn, one of the most fiscally conservative lawmakers in Congress, is right about $11.6 billion being available. But it's not because he had anything to do with it. Congress approved $18.5 billion for disaster relief for 2013, with most of those funds -- $11.5 billion -- approved after Hurricane Sandy. Coburn vocally opposed both packages, but lawmakers decided then none of that emergency aid should be subject to offsets. The amount of money left in that fund is at about $11.6 billion, which means it can be pulled to respond to the Oklahoma storm -- without offsets.
Source
|
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route.
|
On May 24 2013 04:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fired back Thursday at those who have criticized him for demanding that any disaster aid package for Oklahoma tornado victims include offsets, or matching spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. The money is already available to help his constituents, Coburn argued, suggesting that lawmakers only want to pass an unpaid-for disaster aid package so they can tuck other unrelated items in it to benefit their home states.
"It's just typical Washington B.S.," Coburn said during an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "There's $11.6 billion sitting in a bank account waiting to help people in Oklahoma ... It's a crass political game because I was being asked these questions before we even pulled the dead people out of the rubble."
Coburn, one of the most fiscally conservative lawmakers in Congress, is right about $11.6 billion being available. But it's not because he had anything to do with it. Congress approved $18.5 billion for disaster relief for 2013, with most of those funds -- $11.5 billion -- approved after Hurricane Sandy. Coburn vocally opposed both packages, but lawmakers decided then none of that emergency aid should be subject to offsets. The amount of money left in that fund is at about $11.6 billion, which means it can be pulled to respond to the Oklahoma storm -- without offsets. Source
I guess that Tom Coburn is.........full of typical Washington B.S. I absolutely love to see these assholes do backflips when it comes to their own constituency, but I can only hope that it translates into something more tangible than a segment on The Daily Show.
|
On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route.
Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there.
|
On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there.
.....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view.
|
On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes?
They go hand in hand, although you would probably be correct in saying that the US has been more active than the european powers/NATO in stepping into international affairs. I can only really think of the recent NK nonsense and the cuban missle crisis where there was actually threats of nukes being used. The rest seems to have been more US "international police" action in areas of regional conflict.
|
On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view.
No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build".
|
On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build".
What? I seriously don't understand. Red states have typically loved prisons and their construction, as that equals more money and more jobs and a happy private prison lobby.
|
On May 24 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build". What?
I don't know where you get federal prisons and private prisons mixed up but that doesn't allow you to be a dick for no reason. A federal ultramax in illinois is just going to be union built, union staffed, and union operated.
Its going to cost even more probably then gitmo for doing absolutely nothing to change the situation at hand.
|
On May 24 2013 04:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build". What? I don't know where you get federal prisons and private prisons mixed up but that doesn't allow you to be a dick for no reason.
No one's being a dick, you have failed to provide any reasonable disproof towards the notion that Congressional Republicans have, by and large, loved prisons, both private and government owned. Your position is that because Republicans are theoretically against big government that they would summarily disapprove of a new, replacement Gitmo on US shores. In reality, Republicans have voted for a variety of "big government" projects, federal prisons included.
|
On May 24 2013 03:59 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 03:54 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 03:47 SayGen wrote:On May 22 2013 19:47 Roe wrote:On May 22 2013 07:18 SayGen wrote:
They don't call Obama the drone king for nothing.
I actually prefer it this way. Don't put US troops in harms way to neutralize/mitigate/eliminate the enemies of the Red White and Blue.
I'd proud to have been part of drone logistical movements in my soon to be ending Air Force career.
Regardless of who takes the political backlash, it is imperative that US maintain the uncontested world military supremacy. Under US leadership there hasn't been a major war (Vietnam wasn't a war, and Korea was more of a show of power/police action) since we became a superpower. I don't know, I guess I'd consider the Iraq/Iran war a pretty big one... Not really. Though I suppose it depends on how you define war, or more to the point 'real war' Is 'real war' total war- IE: Rations become law--free market is suspended till conflict is over. Does a real war mean a draft occurred? Imho a real war is one that is fought until a side is able to declare uncontested victory, in a manner in which only one side can make said claim. (IE: No win/win scenarios) Also more people died in automobile accidents in the same time span as the Iraq war. War on cars? Don't think so. It doesn't help the conversion that people use the word war wrong. IE: "Culture war" Fox news claiming a War on Christmas. ABC's War on Women. When people realize how insignificant the conflicts fought since WWII are- it is clear that loss of life, and human progression are on the up and up since America assumed an uncontested world power status. Gotta look at the big picture, humans on the macro scale-- and then you may see where I'm coming from. Maybe you can learn the difference between causation and accidental correlation ? I can play this game also, number violent deaths went drastically down when Britain was world-spanning Empire and Europe governed nearly whole world. Or even more ridiculous. Number of deaths from diseases went down in the same time-period once again showing that we need Europe to become violent imperial power once again. Problem is simple: You see 'accidential correlation' I see 'correlation'. Nothing more to say.
The adjective there is irrelevant, just shows you did not actually learn the difference between causation and correlation. Correlation is as bad for your argument as accidental correlation. Correlation does not imply causation and you have yet to show any evidence of causation. The correlation is there also for the ridiculous examples I came up with. Unlike you I do not actually take them seriously.
|
On May 24 2013 04:49 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:48 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build". What? I don't know where you get federal prisons and private prisons mixed up but that doesn't allow you to be a dick for no reason. No one's being a dick, you have failed to provide any reasonable disproof towards the notion that Congressional Republicans have, by and large, loved prisons, both private and government owned.
Being the person that argued that republicans love private prisons (and now union prisons now apparently) the burden of proof is on you. Don't be an asshole and expect other people to prove your arguments wrong.
|
On May 24 2013 04:02 KwarK wrote:
Pax Americana exists. The American military acts as a very strong deterrent for a great power war, everyone already knows which side will win and that makes people not want to try.
In a same way Russia and China act as deterrent. Great power war is prevented not by American military, but by the presence of nukes.
|
United States43753 Posts
On May 24 2013 04:53 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:02 KwarK wrote:
Pax Americana exists. The American military acts as a very strong deterrent for a great power war, everyone already knows which side will win and that makes people not want to try. In a same way Russia and China act as deterrent. Great power war is prevented not by American military, but by the presence of nukes.
America could conceivably pull off a successful first strike against either. MAD isn't really relevant anymore.
|
Like farva your idea of why republicans don't want to close gitmo makes no fucking sense at all.
1. If they loved building prisons so much why would they not want to bring gitmo to america.
2. the ultra max obama wants to build would be in a blue state.
3. why would a private lobby make any difference on a union project
4. the ultra max would be a federal prison not a state prison that republicans like to make into private prisons.
There is literally nothing that supports what you said other then blind partisan hate.
|
On May 24 2013 04:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:49 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:48 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:38 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On May 24 2013 04:28 nunez wrote:
pardon my ignorance, but why is congress impeding the shutdown of guantanamo? to make obama look weak?
edit: i thought he was spot on with syria, i hope it's a viable route. Because they don't want obama to ship them all to the states and build a new ultra-max prison and house them there. .....Congressional Republicans and their involvement with the CCA amongst other private prison lobbies disagree with this view. No I'm pretty sure its the "we don't want obama to just move all these prisoners from one ultra-max prison prison in the us to another ultra-max prison that we now have to build". What? I don't know where you get federal prisons and private prisons mixed up but that doesn't allow you to be a dick for no reason. No one's being a dick, you have failed to provide any reasonable disproof towards the notion that Congressional Republicans have, by and large, loved prisons, both private and government owned. Being the person that argued that republicans love private prisons (and now union prisons now apparently) the burden of proof is on you. Don't be an asshole and expect other people to prove your arguments wrong.
Nothing I said was at all inflammatory, so stop with the crybaby act. The majority of supermax prisons are in red states, and Republicans raised no objections alongside their creation. It is that simple. The fact that ADX Thomson would be built in a blue state just further reinforces the notion that Republicans would only object to this prison based on partisan inclination.
|
On May 24 2013 04:41 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
Is it America as a world police that stops wars on massive scales from happening or the fact that every major power in the world now has nukes? They go hand in hand, although you would probably be correct in saying that the US has been more active than the european powers/NATO in stepping into international affairs. I can only really think of the recent NK nonsense and the cuban missle crisis where there was actually threats of nukes being used. The rest seems to have been more US "international police" action in areas of regional conflict.
The discussion was about "big" wars. Those are not prevented by US "police" actions, but by the threat of nukes and some other factors, none of which has anything to do with specifically US being superpower, especially since most of the time there was second superpower also.
Regional wars are of two kinds. Bigger ones US cannot prevent as it has no ability to do so. I do not mean theoretical military ability, but realistic ability. If India and Pakistan went to conventional war, US would be absolutely powerless to stop it and has been in the past. You can intervene diplomatically, but that can be done by a number of parties that wield economical power, not limited to US. Smaller regional wars can be prevented/stopped by US, but also started or inflamed or prolonged. Actually quantitatively measuring if US has been positive in this regard or not is beyond probably anyone, but definitely beyond our ability to determine. My guess would be that US is about as good at it as was Britain in the past. Standard imperialist procedures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
