| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:35 m4ini wrote: What exactly would that have to do with anything i just said? I live in the UK. I just find it amusing when anyone who is from the UK talks shit about the US fucking up the Middle East. Every time I want to respond "WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!" | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote: I just find it amusing when anyone who is from the UK talks shit about the US fucking up the Middle East. Every time I want to respond "WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!" Except i'm not. Remember? I served in the german army around the same time your brother was in afghanistan. We had that conversation already. @Kwark, the Bush Doctrine could've been drafted at any point, for any reason. It literally is nothing more than saying "we do what we want", and make it legal. It's not like that has never happened before or after - patriot act rings a bell? | ||
KwarK
United States44295 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote: I just find it amusing when anyone who is from the UK talks shit about the US fucking up the Middle East. Every time I want to respond "WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!" Bitch please. We wanted the Hashemite dynasty to run shit. But nooooooooo, apparently those Sauds have some oil so why don't you just give them infinity billion dollars and see what happens. Fucking Yanks. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:42 m4ini wrote: Except i'm not. Remember? I served in the german army around the same time your brother was in afghanistan. We had that conversation already. @Kwark, the Bush Doctrine could've been drafted at any point, for any reason. It literally is nothing more than saying "we do what we want", and make it legal. It's not like that has never happened before or after - patriot act rings a bell? Now I do. A lot happened since that discussion. Germany has a strong history of only fucking up the EU area, so you can dunk on people fucking up the Middle East as much as you want. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
Donald Trump married Melania Knaus in 2005. She had been a permanent resident since 2001. She became a US citizen in 2006. Part of the US naturalization checklist REQUIRES either the last 5 years tax returns if you are single OR the last 3 years tax returns if you are married to a US citizen, which would be in Melania’s case means she needed to provide: For 2003 her single filing… For 2004 her single filing… For 2005 her joint filing with Donald Trump. Melania’s citizenship depended on a squeaky clean joint tax filing in 2005. Hmmmmmmm. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:34 m4ini wrote: Arguably it would have, yes. Again, the US bombed Iraq already in 1998 for "WoMD", which is two years after the PNAC called for a forceful removal of Hussein "to spread democracy". The same "organisation" in which people like Cheney, Rumsfeld etc were members. If you want to argue that the Iraq war would never have happened without 9/11, be my guest. You're wrong on that front, but feel free to. The "war on terror" and most likely the afghanistan invasion wouldn't have happened without 9/11. So if you say that 9/11 started two (or three, if you count war against a doctrine), no, that's not entirely correct. One would've happened either way. sidenote: even without Iraq, i'm not actually arguing your original point. 9/11 was more expensive by magnitudes than anything trump could do to you now. I should perhaps qualify what I said in that previous point. Would there have been a bombing of Iraq at some point in the Bush administration? Probably. Iraq was a problem they wanted to break wide open. Would the scope and size of the Iraq project be what it was without 9/11 and Afghanistan? Probably not. It came off the back of an initially successful Afghanistan campaign and an explosion in popular support. The wave of euphoria for "war, war, war!" was a direct product of 9/11. Iraq? That was a pet project of the Bush team. But the grand "nation building" and "war on terror" project? That was very closely tied to 9/11. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote: Bitch please. We wanted the Hashemite dynasty to run shit. But nooooooooo, apparently those Sauds have some oil so why don't you just give them infinity billion dollars and see what happens. Fucking Yanks. Some of us learned that things from Winston Churchill beyond some choice quotes. And then you all started to feel bad about that whole imperialism thing and we never really slowed down. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:44 Plansix wrote: Now I do. A lot happened since that discussion. Germany has a strong history of only fucking up the EU area, so you can dunk on people fucking up the Middle East as much as you want. Cheers. Although you could argue that "by proxy" germany helped create a timebomb (Israel), but even so, that still has zero merit against the argument that was made. I didn't argue about how you fucked up the middle east (which you did, thanks for pointing that out) - i argued that the Iraq war would've happened either way. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote: Bitch please. We wanted the Hashemite dynasty to run shit. But nooooooooo, apparently those Sauds have some oil so why don't you just give them infinity billion dollars and see what happens. Fucking Yanks. That was the most British-American post I've seen from you in a while. Also succinctly describes part of the whole mess that basically never gets talked about. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote: Some of us learned that things from Winston Churchill beyond some choice quotes. And then you all started to feel bad about that whole imperialism thing and we never really slowed down. Britain was perfectly happy to keep empiring on until they ran out of empire. Then and only then did they start to feel bad about empiring. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote: I should perhaps qualify what I said in that previous point. Would there have been a bombing of Iraq at some point in the Bush administration? Probably. Iraq was a problem they wanted to break wide open. Would the scope and size of the Iraq project be what it was without 9/11 and Afghanistan? Probably not. It came off the back of an initially successful Afghanistan campaign and an explosion in popular support. The wave of euphoria for "war, war, war!" was a direct product of 9/11. But the grand "nation building" and "war on terror" project? That was very closely tied to 9/11. The war on terror project, clearly. That doesn't change the fact that it was only an excuse for something that was thought of/planned anyway along the timeline. If it wouldn't have been 9/11, they would've found a different excuse. How about a city erased by poison gas, which the US obviously can't look away from. Preventive strike against a perceived nuclear threat, maybe? So many opportunities. Britain was perfectly happy to keep empiring on until they ran out of empire. Then and only then did they start to feel bad about empiring. When did that happen? Mostly i hear people moan about how the UK used to be a grand empire. Feeling bad about not being one anymore, but not for empiring. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:51 Plansix wrote: The problem is that the that post WW2, the US got a taste for imperialism beyond our little section of the globe and the Brits didn't warn us that shit was PCP and heroin all at once. And unlike them, we don't run out of money to waste on it. Yet. can we all agree that cutting meals on wheels is a terrible terrible decision? I think that goes without saying, or not? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: can we all agree that cutting meals on wheels is a terrible terrible decision? Considering it feeds like 500K vets and like 2 million people for fucking nothing, yes. On March 17 2017 07:52 m4ini wrote: Yet. I think that goes without saying, or not? Imperialism in cheap. Healthcare cost real money. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:52 m4ini wrote: Yet. I think that goes without saying, or not? well not according to the guy defending the budget. Apparently he can't even google search. Really though we shouldn't have to look it up to know that feeding the elderly is good and that if you give kids food their school performance goes up. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: can we all agree that cutting meals on wheels is a terrible terrible decision? i'm not completely certain I cna agree with that. but I can agree they made the decision in a terrible and unsound manner which didn't reflect actual results well. I haven't seen data closely examine the cost/benefit for the program compared to various other public support programs. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: well not according to the guy defending the budget. Apparently he can't even google search https://twitter.com/FPAction/status/842475693711613952 He works for Trump, he is clearly a deeply stupid person who doesn't understand goverment or the role it fills in the supporting America's poor and elderly. Or he does know and simply wants to fuck over those who should have died because of Social Darwinism. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:53 zlefin wrote: i'm not completely certain I cna agree with that. but I can agree they made the decision in a terrible and unsound manner which didn't reflect actual results well. I haven't seen data closely examine the cost/benefit for the program compared to various other public support programs. well yeah If there's a way to do it better or more efficiently by doing something else that's one thing but just blindly cutting it with nothing else is bad unless the program somehow does absolutely no good whatsoever (like the DARE Program.) I suppose I should have made that a bit clearer. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: well not according to the guy defending the budget. Apparently he can't even google search https://twitter.com/FPAction/status/842475693711613952 You see, that's way too abstract already. I'd stick to the simple "people would starve otherwise" argument. Now, granted. I only have a small insight in that program, i don't know if it's abusable - but from what i read, it's ridiculous to cut there. Except you're in japan or something. There it's to be expected. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Shine vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs EffOrt
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
