|
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 Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2017 06:15 tyr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 05:36 Noidberg wrote:On January 28 2017 04:57 Velr wrote:
Here is a small word for the americans that think abot mexico paying for the wall.
PRIDE, you know it, you love it for your own country. So, who the fuck do you think you are to demabd something like that from another people.
You disgust me in the truest sense of the word. Mexico has no pride. When we took over their republic, seized their land, marched on their capital and wrote their constitution. America is going to lead by example like we always have and demand others follow as trump laments peace through strength. Trump represents the movement the populist movement that Federal law is needed when out of control democracy attempts to tear down society. Feminism, Liberalism all cancers which drag down the family unit the unit which empowers a strong middle class who can keep a government in check. A strong middle class is the backbone of any great nation and we will not forsake it. The time of swaying opinion is over we won, nationalism won, globalism lost and anyone who stands in our way is an enemy of the human race. We fight for cultures, families, race and the western way of life and for life itself. The time of Mexico leeching off our society is over. Mexico has needed a revolution for a very long time and their cowardly politicians would rather prop up a broken system then make their own country great. Illegal immigrants drain societies which leads to out of control democracy which leads to feminism which leads to societies downfall. If you are paying attention to american politics and social issues we are resetting the system, de-funding sanctuary cities, deporting criminal illegal aliens and bringing back wealth to our country. Too long have elitists all over the world sabotaged societies for their greed. Too long have identity politics lorded over the logic needed to run a society. Mexico is only the first of many nations who will reform and bend the knee if you will .America is here to support you if you are willing to change if not the hardships are your own. User was temp banned for this post. What the actual fuck. I'm sorry, I don't usually post in here, but I seriously gotta ask: is this how the majority of the people who voted for Trump feel? If so, I'm very, very concerned about the future of America.
Like any country in the world, the US has a wide range of people with a wide range of political opinions.
The reasons one may have voted for Trump are many.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff).
I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss.
|
On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss.
Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil.
|
On January 28 2017 06:02 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 05:47 Piledriver wrote:I seriously gotta ask - are you drunk or high? Illegal immigrants drain societies which leads to out of control democracy which leads to feminism which leads to societies downfall. What on earth are you even talking about? Immigration leads to Feminism which leads to "societies" downfall? How does this even make sense? Is this a next level copy pasta, or is this actually how the average right winger thinks? Yes illegal immigration leads to wealth drain on a society as they send money overseas in the case of mexico and enroll in welfare programs or live in federal funded sanctuary cities. Upholding the federal law is met with identity politics which defends leech liberal lifestyles which leads to feminism which kills the family unit. Once the family unit dies the middle class dies and thus you have a complacent welfare state with no power over the government. Basically women kill societies and we must never forsake the natural order of things.
This is one of the scariest things that I have ever read. You think women kill societies. That is incredibly wrong. Do you really think humans would have ever gotten this far as a species if women killed societies? I am still in high school, but even I can see that women are benefits to society, even if I have to phrase it in such crude ways. Half of our species is women, and we (I'll just assume that you are also male from your viewpoint on women) need them to reproduce and have enough people to form societies. They are integral to our survival as a species, in the same way that men are. Yet they kill societies. What?
Wait.
You think Mexico is across the sea rofl
|
On January 28 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 05:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 28 2017 05:32 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 28 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 04:57 Velr wrote:
Here is a small word for the americans that think abot mexico paying for the wall.
PRIDE, you know it, you love it for your own country. So, who the fuck do you think you are to demabd something like that from another people.
You disgust me in the truest sense of the word. Here's the point that so many of you miss: every country has the right to pursue its own best interests. America is no different than anyone else in this regard. The US is neither a charity nor a global buffet line. Mexico has unequivocally abused our good will. A debt is owed, and the US has the ability to make them pay for it. Any rational actor pursuing his best interests would do what Trump is doing. Your useless moralizing has no place here. You realize this argument has basically never worked in the history of ever? The only nations that will agree with yours are the ones that want to do the same and grab some territory and resources for themselves through force (e.g. China and Russia). You have it backwards. My argument is how things have always worked historically. The only arguable exception has been during the post-Cold War unipolar world that the US has dominated. This order is clearly ending. Except you're wrong? Historically no one has ever bothered with this ass backward attempt to justify taking over another nation, or used convoluted logic to try and justify taking resources. They just invaded with superior power and claimed the land. Even when Germany was forced to "repay" other nations after WWI, it was because they lost the war. If your argument is that the US is stronger than Mexico and has the power to take what it wants, okay then. But trying to pretend that Mexico deserves it because they "abused your good will", no one is going to believe it except the US. You're misunderstanding me. The key point that I am making is that every country should act in its own best self-interest. The end is all that matters. The justification for a given action is just window dressing. However, it just so happens that the US has just cause to put the screws to Mexico like Trump is doing.
Okay, so as long as we established the justification is "ra ra America"...
What you're missing then is that it is not in the best interest of the rest of the world to allow the USA to economically bully another nation just because it wants money. And if your politicians were better at politicking, then you might be able to convince the rest of the world that the reasons are more than "we want money to build a wall".
So the best interest of nations that are individually smaller than the US, but collectively larger, are to apply joint economic pressure and hurt the US.
Because, you know, when you try to get more money from North American countries through NAFTA, more from European countries through NATO, and antagonize China who has a finger in a massive percentage of US investments and money, you'll find out why it took Donald Trump to have this "bright" idea.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil.
By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life?
|
On January 28 2017 06:15 tyr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 05:36 Noidberg wrote:On January 28 2017 04:57 Velr wrote:
Here is a small word for the americans that think abot mexico paying for the wall.
PRIDE, you know it, you love it for your own country. So, who the fuck do you think you are to demabd something like that from another people.
You disgust me in the truest sense of the word. Mexico has no pride. When we took over their republic, seized their land, marched on their capital and wrote their constitution. America is going to lead by example like we always have and demand others follow as trump laments peace through strength. Trump represents the movement the populist movement that Federal law is needed when out of control democracy attempts to tear down society. Feminism, Liberalism all cancers which drag down the family unit the unit which empowers a strong middle class who can keep a government in check. A strong middle class is the backbone of any great nation and we will not forsake it. The time of swaying opinion is over we won, nationalism won, globalism lost and anyone who stands in our way is an enemy of the human race. We fight for cultures, families, race and the western way of life and for life itself. The time of Mexico leeching off our society is over. Mexico has needed a revolution for a very long time and their cowardly politicians would rather prop up a broken system then make their own country great. Illegal immigrants drain societies which leads to out of control democracy which leads to feminism which leads to societies downfall. If you are paying attention to american politics and social issues we are resetting the system, de-funding sanctuary cities, deporting criminal illegal aliens and bringing back wealth to our country. Too long have elitists all over the world sabotaged societies for their greed. Too long have identity politics lorded over the logic needed to run a society. Mexico is only the first of many nations who will reform and bend the knee if you will .America is here to support you if you are willing to change if not the hardships are your own. User was temp banned for this post. What the actual fuck. I'm sorry, I don't usually post in here, but I seriously gotta ask: is this how the majority of the people who voted for Trump feel? If so, I'm very, very concerned about the future of America.
no.
i've seen many accounts of trump supporters in this thread and elsewhere, read their reasons, and none of them sound like that guy.
not that the trump voters have notably good reasons, but they don't sound anything like this guy, not nearly as crazy. iirc there was some good place to find people's reasons if you want to read a bunch of them I could probably find it.
|
On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life?
America have literally supported the entire world in terms of being there when natural disasters strikes and giving foreign aid to countries such as food and have tons of charities.
Now that America is not doing great economically and want to focus on herself, you are hating her?
You should be saying "Ah that's understandable, but thanks for your previous help though!" instead of being ungrateful.
|
On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life?
Oil for food was a big success from an American point of view I guess.
|
On January 28 2017 06:55 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life? America have literally supported the entire world in terms of being there when natural disasters strikes and giving foreign aid to countries such as food and have tons of charities. Now that America is not doing great economically and want to focus on herself, you are hating her? You should be saying "Ah that's understandable, but thanks for your previous help though!" instead of being ungrateful.
america has done a great many good things throughout the world. it's also done quite a number of very bad things.
you're also misrepresenting what he said.
and of course, sometimes irrational hatred against some distant power/group is stoked because some local politician can benefit from it.
ps, economically america actually is doing pretty well compared to a lot of other places.
|
On January 28 2017 06:55 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life? America have literally supported the entire world in terms of being there when natural disasters strikes and giving foreign aid to countries such as food and have tons of charities. Now that America is not doing great economically and want to focus on herself, you are hating her? You should be saying "Ah that's understandable, but thanks for your previous help though!" instead of being ungrateful.
I'm just amused by this baseless worrying that other countries are going to punish the US for screwing with Mexico. Did everyone miss that Reuters article that I posted yesterday citing the Canadian officials? It couldn't have been more clear that the Canada is perfectly willing to throw Mexico under the Trump bus. The bottom line is that the rest of the world needs the US more than it needs Mexico.
|
Theresa May said at the press conference she's "glad Trump confirmed he's 100% behind the NATO alliance". I can only laugh that this was necessary to say - but it shows you there is European unease, and it's probably not enough for May to say this.
|
On January 28 2017 06:55 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life? America have literally supported the entire world in terms of being there when natural disasters strikes and giving foreign aid to countries such as food and have tons of charities. Now that America is not doing great economically and want to focus on herself, you are hating her? You should be saying "Ah that's understandable, but thanks for your previous help though!" instead of being ungrateful.
America has not been supporting the world. In fact it has a long history of only supporting certain governments that it feels will in return support it. Failure to do so will result in military action, covert action, economic pressure, etc. America is hardly suffering.
If you simply closed the tax loop holes that allow roughly 2/3 of your medium-large businesses to avoid paying taxes, and properly fixed your infrastructure you would be fine. But without Bernie that ain't gonna happen. The world owes you nothing so never expect anything from us.
Bullying Mexico will simply in turn hurt the US. It also might push Mexico to seek more trade with the rest of the Americas. Or elsewhere. Pissing of China is dangerously stupid.
|
On January 28 2017 07:09 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life? America have literally supported the entire world in terms of being there when natural disasters strikes and giving foreign aid to countries such as food and have tons of charities. Now that America is not doing great economically and want to focus on herself, you are hating her? You should be saying "Ah that's understandable, but thanks for your previous help though!" instead of being ungrateful. America has not been supporting the world. In fact it has a long history of only supporting certain governments that it feels will in return support it. Failure to do so will result in military action, covert action, economic pressure, etc. America is hardly suffering. If you simply closed the tax loop holes that allow roughly 2/3 of your medium-large businesses to avoid paying taxes, and properly fixed your infrastructure you would be fine. But without Bernie that ain't gonna happen. The world owes you nothing so never expect anything from us. Bullying Mexico will simply in turn hurt the US. It also might push Mexico to seek more trade with the rest of the Americas. Or elsewhere. Pissing of China is dangerously stupid.
I said some of the same things a couple pages ago. I don't get why people, Trump included, treat this as such a mystery. Stop catering to hunger for profits and shareholders and do what you're supposed to do for your people and everyone will be happy. Obviously that's a gross oversimplification, but it's a start. It's like every time we want to "make America great" we immediately take "fucking big business in favor of the common man" off the table. Infuriating.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
china is hyper rational when it comes to controlled conflicts. there is no 'pissing off' china, there is just what china can get out of a situation.
|
On January 28 2017 07:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life? America have literally supported the entire world in terms of being there when natural disasters strikes and giving foreign aid to countries such as food and have tons of charities. Now that America is not doing great economically and want to focus on herself, you are hating her? You should be saying "Ah that's understandable, but thanks for your previous help though!" instead of being ungrateful. I'm just amused by this baseless worrying that other countries are going to punish the US for screwing with Mexico. Did everyone miss that Reuters article that I posted yesterday citing the Canadian officials? It couldn't have been more clear that the Canada is perfectly willing to throw Mexico under the Trump bus. The bottom line is that the rest of the world needs the US more than it needs Mexico.
While this is true, I do think there will be a point where it goes too far. If we start trying to pull the same stuff with European countries or South Korea or something, I can imagine a situation where governments start to ally themselves against us. So while I don't expect the EU or major Asian countries to give a shit about Mexico, I do expect that they will protect each other if it becomes clear Trump is just going down the list and trying to throw everyone under the bus.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
btw brad delong, a horse whisperer to the hrc administration's econ policy direction, is doing an ama on reddit at 7 est.
ask him questions like, what more forceful means were they considering to boost the economy for left behind folks, what 'industrial policy' consists of, how to ensure enforcement of labor and enviro standards in trade deals, how to change corporate management minds on long term investment, and the most important question of all, what if these measures don't work
|
On January 28 2017 07:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 07:09 MyTHicaL wrote:On January 28 2017 06:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:
[quote]
By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life? America have literally supported the entire world in terms of being there when natural disasters strikes and giving foreign aid to countries such as food and have tons of charities. Now that America is not doing great economically and want to focus on herself, you are hating her? You should be saying "Ah that's understandable, but thanks for your previous help though!" instead of being ungrateful. America has not been supporting the world. In fact it has a long history of only supporting certain governments that it feels will in return support it. Failure to do so will result in military action, covert action, economic pressure, etc. America is hardly suffering. If you simply closed the tax loop holes that allow roughly 2/3 of your medium-large businesses to avoid paying taxes, and properly fixed your infrastructure you would be fine. But without Bernie that ain't gonna happen. The world owes you nothing so never expect anything from us. Bullying Mexico will simply in turn hurt the US. It also might push Mexico to seek more trade with the rest of the Americas. Or elsewhere. Pissing of China is dangerously stupid. I said some of the same things a couple pages ago. I don't get why people, Trump included, treat this as such a mystery. Stop catering to hunger for profits and shareholders and do what you're supposed to do for your people and everyone will be happy. Obviously that's a gross oversimplification, but it's a start. It's like every time we want to "make America great" we immediately take "fucking big business in favor of the common man" off the table. Infuriating.
What I find amusing is that people seem to think that our political system functions in such a way where we even could "fuck big business over in favor of the common man" in such a way that big business couldn't defend itself adequately.
I can't think of the last significant fight big business actually lost, the closest you'll come is particular segments of big businesses interests pitted against each other.
|
On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:46 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 05:28 mustaju wrote:
I am most worried about the shoot from the hip "take their oil" comments. He specifically stated that he would not want to signal ahead of unilateral action. Statements like these get people killed in unnecessary wars. Civilian resistance will likely be worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump is absolutely right that we should have taken their oil if we were going to bother to invade in the first place. By making a statement like this, you better be ready to go to those countries and shoot those people yourself. What a way to respect your veterans. You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil.
So would an appropriate analogy be if the police bust into my house looking for weed (though I've never smoked anything in my life) they can take my TV because their visit shouldn't be unproductive?
|
On January 28 2017 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 07:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:On January 28 2017 07:09 MyTHicaL wrote:On January 28 2017 06:55 RealityIsKing wrote:On January 28 2017 06:41 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:26 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2017 06:04 mustaju wrote:On January 28 2017 05:50 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You have it all wrong. If we had conquered Iraq, stayed there, and taken the oil, at least the veterans' sacrifices would have meant something for the USA. As it stands now, everything that was sacrificed in Iraq was for naught. So, the lives you attempted to save from an authoritarian who used chemical weapons meant nothing. The selfdeclared attempt to spread american/democratic values freedoms also meant nothing? I don't know about American veterans, but the Estonian ones would punch you for saying such a thing, especially without having served yourself. I refuse to believe you represent any significant portion of the US. Is Iraq better off now than it was before we toppled Saddam (ie are the people better off)? Has the US gotten any return on the trillion+ dollars that it spent on toppling Saddam? Put the feelings away and look at the cold, hard facts. Like I have argued before, I think that committing to building a western-style of democracy in Iraq could have worked had Obama committed to doing it. But that ship has long since sailed. All that we're left with is the wreckage of the post-Saddam era in Iraq (you know, ISIS and stuff). I think that a country can try and fail at something, and while not being entirely successful, the United States might have been naive, but at least it was not unapologetically evil. Failure does not mean that everything about the attempt was bad. How many Americans do you know who would go and fight for Iraq's oil? Are the ones who wouldn't not your countrymen? What should be done with those who resist? Trump has bit off more than he can chew, don't follow him into that abyss. Trump's argument isn't that we should have invaded Iraq to take the oil. His argument is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, but given that we did, we should have at least taken the oil. By no justification other than "might makes right" do you have any right to that oil. And if you thought that anti-American sentiment was bad before, it's gonna get far worse after something like that. Do you apply that rationale to any other fields of life? America have literally supported the entire world in terms of being there when natural disasters strikes and giving foreign aid to countries such as food and have tons of charities. Now that America is not doing great economically and want to focus on herself, you are hating her? You should be saying "Ah that's understandable, but thanks for your previous help though!" instead of being ungrateful. America has not been supporting the world. In fact it has a long history of only supporting certain governments that it feels will in return support it. Failure to do so will result in military action, covert action, economic pressure, etc. America is hardly suffering. If you simply closed the tax loop holes that allow roughly 2/3 of your medium-large businesses to avoid paying taxes, and properly fixed your infrastructure you would be fine. But without Bernie that ain't gonna happen. The world owes you nothing so never expect anything from us. Bullying Mexico will simply in turn hurt the US. It also might push Mexico to seek more trade with the rest of the Americas. Or elsewhere. Pissing of China is dangerously stupid. I said some of the same things a couple pages ago. I don't get why people, Trump included, treat this as such a mystery. Stop catering to hunger for profits and shareholders and do what you're supposed to do for your people and everyone will be happy. Obviously that's a gross oversimplification, but it's a start. It's like every time we want to "make America great" we immediately take "fucking big business in favor of the common man" off the table. Infuriating. What I find amusing is that people seem to think that our political system functions in such a way where we even could "fuck big business over in favor of the common man" in such a way that big business couldn't defend itself adequately. I can't think of the last significant fight big business actually lost, the closest you'll come is particular segments of big businesses interests pitted against each other.
They lost in the late 1800s and early 1900s to unions, and is why they're so desperate to demonize them now - they are pretty much literally the only threat to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
