|
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. |
On October 15 2016 22:06 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies. Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east? If she is not the solution why perpetuate politics that don't work and only create more misery ? The french guy has been bombed several times this year and doesn't seem to care much about the fact that it happened because of western mainly american meddling in the middle-east. She accepts money from the saudis and gulf states, wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, sounds like a great plan. Let's hear your solution, then. Abandon those fighting Assad, watch genocide from a distance and teach Russia that they can get whatever they want if they just bomb the shit out of stuff?
You do realize that if the rebels were able to besiege the regime controlled Aleppo where currently there are many more civilians inhabiting there would really be a genocide right ? I mean, the rebels before the latest Aleppo offensive where just saying that they would kill all the Shia and cut their heads off.
Obama had good opportunities to end Assad when the regime crossed his red line, the US did nothing and the situation escalated to what we have right now. The failed CIA and PENTAGON programs to aid the rebels and other debacles showed that the US foreign policy is fragile and incoherent. Now the fragmentation of Syria is inevitable and Aleppo is falling as we speak, the rebels are backed into a corner and will try a last offensive to break the siege that will probably fail.
Just recently there was a peace plan on the table that was broken when the US mistakenly struck forces of the Syrian Army and killed dozens this gives credit to Trump and his plan to coordinate efforts with russia to destroy isis.
|
On October 15 2016 22:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:51 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:37 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:...
[quote]
if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Um......we didn't have nukes prior to WW2. Like what? I'm saying even before they took the decision to use them on the Japanese there were tests and they went ahead with the strikes knowing the full power of the atomic bombs. No you are not saying that. Ofc i was i was but thanks for your input. No you weren't. Here is what you wrote: Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Do tell -- which "many other presidents" before Truman asked the question "why can't we just use nukes"?
I admit my english sucks that's why it sounded like that but what i was saying is that even before bombing the japanese with the nukes they asked those questions.
|
On October 15 2016 22:17 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:06 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 22:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies. Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east? If she is not the solution why perpetuate politics that don't work and only create more misery ? The french guy has been bombed several times this year and doesn't seem to care much about the fact that it happened because of western mainly american meddling in the middle-east. She accepts money from the saudis and gulf states, wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, sounds like a great plan. Let's hear your solution, then. Abandon those fighting Assad, watch genocide from a distance and teach Russia that they can get whatever they want if they just bomb the shit out of stuff? You do realize that if the rebels were able to besiege the regime controlled Aleppo where currently there are many more civilians inhabiting there would really be a genocide right ? I mean, the rebels before the latest Aleppo offensive where just saying that they would kill all the Shia and cut their heads off. Obama had good opportunities to end Assad when the regime crossed his red line, the US did nothing and the situation escalated to what we have right now. The failed CIA and PENTAGON programs to aid the rebels and other debacles showed that the US foreign policy is fragile and incoherent. Now the fragmentation of Syria is inevitable and Aleppo is falling as we speak, the rebels are backed into a corner and will try a last offensive to break the siege that will probably fail. Just recently there was a peace plan on the table that was broken when the US mistakenly struck forces of the Syrian Army and killed dozens this gives credit to Trump and his plan to coordinate efforts with russia to destroy isis.
And why did the US do nothing when the 'red line' was crossed?
Oh right, the Republican controlled congress did not allow him to.
So why are you blaming Obama for it?
|
On October 15 2016 22:16 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:55 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. Okay. I assume then, that based on the above post and this one: On October 15 2016 16:03 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Hopefully we will have some surprises before the election is over, i'm black and i would vote for Trump if i was american, the disgust i have for hillary is enough for me to side with the alt-right on this one.
...
that you feel that the many inappropriate comments which Trump has made about important situations are significantly less damning than those that Hillary has made. Question: Does that accurately represent your opinion? + Show Spoiler +Bear in mind that this set of comments includes things such as "grab them by the pussy" et cetera, "why don't we use nukes" (that one's a paraphrase), "we're gonna go in and defeat ISIS in 90 days" (and damn the consequences)... and the list goes on, I'm sure other posters can provide us with more statements from Trump. @Portugal: You still haven't answered this question.
Why it would accurately represent my opinion if i'm a person and not a bot that believes and trusts everything someone says just because i support some of the things they say ?
Oh right, the Republican controlled congress did not allow him to.
So why are you blaming Obama for it?
Thats just a scapegoat, Obama was relived for not having to intervene again on a conflict that sooner or later would lead to more american troops on the ground.
At the outset of the Syrian uprising, in early 2011, Power argued that the rebels, drawn from the ranks of ordinary citizens, deserved America’s enthusiastic support. Others noted that the rebels were farmers and doctors and carpenters, comparing these revolutionaries to the men who won America’s war for independence.
Obama flipped this plea on its head. “When you have a professional army,” he once told me, “that is well armed and sponsored by two large states”—Iran and Russia—“who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict …” He paused. “The notion that we could have—in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces—changed the equation on the ground there was never true.” The message Obama telegraphed in speeches and interviews was clear: He would not end up like the second President Bush—a president who became tragically overextended in the Middle East, whose decisions filled the wards of Walter Reed with grievously wounded soldiers, who was helpless to stop the obliteration of his reputation, even when he recalibrated his policies in his second term. Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was “Don’t do stupid shit.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
|
On October 15 2016 22:14 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:06 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 22:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies. Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east? If she is not the solution why perpetuate politics that don't work and only create more misery ? The french guy has been bombed several times this year and doesn't seem to care much about the fact that it happened because of western mainly american meddling in the middle-east. She accepts money from the saudis and gulf states, wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, sounds like a great plan. Let's hear your solution, then. Abandon those fighting Assad, watch genocide from a distance and teach Russia that they can get whatever they want if they just bomb the shit out of stuff? What genocide?
Haven't you heard? Al Qaeda are the good guys now in Syria, evil regime is just hating on them for no reason 
|
On October 15 2016 22:19 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:15 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2016 21:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:51 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:37 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit.
I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but...
It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Um......we didn't have nukes prior to WW2. Like what? I'm saying even before they took the decision to use them on the Japanese there were tests and they went ahead with the strikes knowing the full power of the atomic bombs. No you are not saying that. Ofc i was i was but thanks for your input. No you weren't. Here is what you wrote: On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Do tell -- which "many other presidents" before Truman asked the question "why can't we just use nukes"? I admit my english sucks that's why it sounded like that but what i was saying is that even before bombing the japanese with the nukes they asked those questions.
No no no. Not "they asked". You said "many presidents asked".
We don't gang up on this to embarass you (although your terrible defense makes it tempting) but because it's consistent with the fact you have very loud opinion while not really seeming to know what you talk about.
|
On October 15 2016 22:23 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:14 TheDwf wrote:On October 15 2016 22:06 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 22:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2016 21:57 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. The thing with Russia is, to quote Kennan, that it has no friends, only vassals and ennemies. That has been true since the bolshevik revolution and it still is. Tose who think that Putin wants a friendly relation with the US haven't been paying much attention about Russia FP in the last fifteen years. Even then the american has been much more destructive and intrusive and has caused many more deaths around the globe. Still you are able to claim that the russians are bad and that hillary is the solution to the middle-eastern wars, she will perpetuate the same evils while supporting repressive regimes like Saudi arabia that the US shamefully calls as allies. Where has anyone claimed that Hillary is the solution to the middle-east? If she is not the solution why perpetuate politics that don't work and only create more misery ? The french guy has been bombed several times this year and doesn't seem to care much about the fact that it happened because of western mainly american meddling in the middle-east. She accepts money from the saudis and gulf states, wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, sounds like a great plan. Let's hear your solution, then. Abandon those fighting Assad, watch genocide from a distance and teach Russia that they can get whatever they want if they just bomb the shit out of stuff? What genocide? Haven't you heard? Al Qaeda are the good guys now in Syria, evil regime is just hating on them for no reason
Clinton is pro Al Qaeda!!
I fucking knew it!!!
Evil bitch...
Good old Bashar is only responsible for 250 000 death after he responded with a bloodbath with what were at first, peaceful protests. He seems like a good guy.
And Clinton has been a good friend with Al Qaeda leadership. You know, like Bin Laden
|
On October 15 2016 22:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:19 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:15 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2016 21:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 21:51 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:37 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]
Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Um......we didn't have nukes prior to WW2. Like what? I'm saying even before they took the decision to use them on the Japanese there were tests and they went ahead with the strikes knowing the full power of the atomic bombs. No you are not saying that. Ofc i was i was but thanks for your input. No you weren't. Here is what you wrote: On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese. Do tell -- which "many other presidents" before Truman asked the question "why can't we just use nukes"? I admit my english sucks that's why it sounded like that but what i was saying is that even before bombing the japanese with the nukes they asked those questions. No no no. Not "they asked". You said "many presidents asked". We don't gang up on this to embarass you (although your terrible defense makes it tempting) but because it's consistent with the fact you have very loud opinion while not really seeming to know what you talk about.
Dude i ofc you are ganging up on me to try to embarrass and say that i don't know what i'm talking about because you don't like what i say, if i didn't know what i was talking about i wouldn't be here on a public forum debating about it. I'm men enough to admit if i was mistaken about anything and correct my mistake. Now, i wanted to say a different thing that what you guys interpreted from my phrase, if you don't believe it that's your problem i already said three times that i meant a totally different thing. Now if you want to debate my arguments instead of trying to attack my poor wording be my guest, teamliquid was always a good stage for debate and for fruitful engagement.
Clinton is pro Al Qaeda!!
I fucking knew it!!!
Evil bitch...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
Haven't you heard? Al Qaeda are the good guys now in Syria, evil regime is just hating on them for no reason
I never thought it would come the time where we would be on the same side of any argument on Teamliquid.
|
Then is your argument that Truman probably asked that same question despite having seen the devastating power of nukes in tests, and so it gives leeway to Trump asking the same question?
|
On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works.
We are at least partially to blame for the state of Russia's economy. If the world had any true sense of justice and equality on a state level, we'd have imposed the same (or, really, much worse, considering all the death) sanctions on the US for invading Iraq. But no, only Russia has to suffer such consequences. The US just made a mistake in Iraq, it wasn't intentional, so they're off the hook, right? Russia annexed a country that asked to join with them! How dare they! We've gone over this, but I really don't see Russia as an expansionist power, and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. You can point at the Republic of Crimea all you like, but in UN conducted polls from 2008 to 2011 the results were consistently 70% in favour of a referendum suggesting joining with Russia (15% undecided, 15% no). Then rebels overthrew the elected government... We need to stop going in circles about this.
And when it comes to maintaining balance, I hold the belief that you don't achieve stability by upending supposed fascist governments that are largely supported by its people, or supporting factions that violently overthrow elected governments. Does that mean I support fascism? No, I think the people should rise up against fascists. But it is up to the people there to bring about a revolution, because without the support of the vast majority of the people, there will be bloodshed. Giving people weapons just means more bloodshed. Peaceful transition towards democracy is a difficult slow process, it didn't happen in Europe or America, but it can be done. You don't need to invade every country that is still working towards it. And even if there are signs of genocide, there are better means than responding with more violence. We should find diplomatic ways to shelter people from violence, not bring more violence to them. Offer sanctuary and whatnot.
|
On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like."
EDIT: Are these people seriously proposing that the US should make an enemy of Saudi Arabia, and that that action would have any positive consequences whatsoever?
|
On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like."
She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud.
|
On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud.
If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched".
|
On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched".
I was being sarcastic and taking a jab at the hypocrisy of her foreign policy.
On October 15 2016 22:34 JinDesu wrote:
Then is your argument that Truman probably asked that same question despite having seen the devastating power of nukes in tests, and so it gives leeway to Trump asking the same question?
I think there is always room for improvement , why can't a president say that nukes are on the table even if its just a bluff ? Why would someone in a war cripple themselves by telling their enemies that they won't use their most devastating weapons.
|
On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." EDIT: Are these people seriously proposing that the US should make an enemy of Saudi Arabia, and that that action would have any positive consequences whatsoever?
I think what people are saying is that you shouldn't make an enemy out of Saudi Arabia any more than you should of Assad and the Syrian government. At least, that's what I've been trying to say. They're scumbags, all of them, from my moral perspective, but it's what we've got.
And as far as I can tell, the US government (and the incoming Clinton administration, by the looks of it) do in fact support Al Qaeda in Syria. Be it through Saudi Arabia or by directly giving them weapons, I'm not sure.
|
On October 15 2016 22:34 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. We are at least partially to blame for the state of Russia's economy. If the world had any true sense of justice and equality on a state level, we'd have imposed the same (or, really, much worse, considering all the death) sanctions on the US for invading Iraq. But no, only Russia has to suffer such consequences. The US just made a mistake in Iraq, it wasn't intentional, so they're off the hook, right? Russia annexed a country that asked to join with them! How dare they! We've gone over this, but I really don't see Russia as an expansionist power, and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. You can point at the Republic of Crimea all you like, but in UN conducted polls from 2008 to 2011 the results were consistently 70% in favour of a referendum suggesting joining with Russia (15% undecided, 15% no). Then rebels overthrew the elected government... We need to stop going in circles about this. And when it comes to maintaining balance, I hold the belief that you don't achieve stability by upending supposed fascist governments that are largely supported by its people, or supporting factions that violently overthrow elected governments. Does that mean I support fascism? No, I think the people should rise up against fascists. But it is up to the people there to bring about a revolution, because without the support of the vast majority of the people, there will be bloodshed. Giving people weapons just means more bloodshed. Peaceful transition towards democracy is a difficult slow process, it didn't happen in Europe or America, but it can be done. You don't need to invade every country that is still working towards it. And even if there are signs of genocide, there are better means than responding with more violence. We should find diplomatic ways to shelter people from violence, not bring more violence to them. Offer sanctuary and whatnot.
So if Noord Brabant got a majority wanting to separate from NL and join Brabant instead, you'd be ok with Belgium invading and annexing it? Also if the Belgians had oppressed NL for most of the previous century, and the only reason that majority existed in the first place was because of Belgian resettlement programs?
While I am fairly pragmatic in that regard, and would support Crimeans right to decide fort themselves, I am also a strong believer in using lawful means, and Russia very clearly did no such thing. Crimea was invaded and unlawfully annexed, after which there was a farce of a referendum to justify the invasion post hoc. There should be consequences for such advise of power, and that is what the sanctions are (in addition to being a pressure tool to incentivies Russia to stop their bellicose meddling in the Ukraine).
PS. I used Brabant because of its economic importance. Crimea's importance is strategic rather than economic, but it is not an insignificant tract of land for either Ukraine or Russia.
|
On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched".
The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists.
Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting.
Can we move on?
|
On October 15 2016 22:45 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." EDIT: Are these people seriously proposing that the US should make an enemy of Saudi Arabia, and that that action would have any positive consequences whatsoever? I think what people are saying is that you shouldn't make an enemy out of Saudi Arabia any more than you should of Assad and the Syrian government. At least, that's what I've been trying to say. They're scumbags, all of them, from my moral perspective, but it's what we've got. And as far as I can tell, the US government (and the incoming Clinton administration, by the looks of it) do in fact support Al Qaeda in Syria. Be it through Saudi Arabia or by directly giving them weapons, I'm not sure.
Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E.
The moral arguments really only comes up as an excuse to justify bombing him. It's far easier to justify bombing him because of brutal acts of terror than because "we don't like him".
|
On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on?
Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis.
Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E.
You are correct, but the problem with this is that in doing so it created a great ambient for extremists to prosper and gain a foothold in a very volatile region of the globe. How do you see a post-assad Syria where the rebels were able to defeat the regime ?
|
On October 15 2016 22:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:58 Doodsmack wrote:Three members of a Kansas militia group were charged Friday with plotting to bomb an apartment complex that's home to Somali immigrants in the western Kansas meatpacking town of Garden City, a thwarted attack prosecutors say was planned for the day after the November election.
The arrests were the culmination of an eight-month FBI investigation that took agents "deep into a hidden culture of hatred and violence," Acting U.S. Attorney Tom Beall said.
A complaint unsealed Friday charges Curtis Wayne Allen, 49; Patrick Eugene Stein, 47; and Gavin Wayne Wright, 49, with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction. Their first court appearance is Monday.
Prosecutors said the men don't yet have attorneys. Publicly listed phone numbers for the men couldn't immediately be found.
The men are members of a small militia group that calls itself "the Crusaders," and whose members espouse sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs, according to the complaint. YahooI trust Trump supporters will call for databases and monitoring of these terrorist groups in America. Oh but wait, there won't be a peep....after all, these are just bad apples. SPLC already monitors over 100 white nationalist groups in the USA. If they monitor those groups then there is surely no issue with them monitoring extremist muslim groups?
I'm just making sure Trump supporters are being thorough in their protection of our safety and security. We should certainly monitor extremist Muslim groups in the US. But Trump's other proposals regarding Muslims need to be equally applied to those white males who might be converted into extremist groups in the US (or simply go on solo rampages).
And we should be sure to direct sufficient rhetoric towards white extremist groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
