|
On October 10 2009 11:56 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:47 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote:
Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting? Lobbyists, bankers, glenn beck (lol), loud townhall republicans, blue dogs etc etc
That doesn't seem to stop him on his crusade for Cap and Trade, Public Healthcare, etc. Secondly, is Glenn Beck, or Barack Obama President? I see you are trying to deflect responsibility off the man who is directly responsible to others. If "the man" himself, is not responsible who is? That is to say, if the person making the decisions for the actions of the US is not responsible for those direct actions, who is?
|
Though it does look a bit off topic talking soley about the total effect of the wars. He did inherit them... in all fairness... he just isn't down-scaling them like I had hoped.
|
On October 10 2009 12:01 cUrsOr wrote:
Though it does look a bit off topic talking soley about the total effect of the wars. He did inherit them... in all fairness... he just isn't down-scaling them like I had hoped.
if you're implying pulling out, that isn't exactly the best option....
|
United States43867 Posts
On October 10 2009 11:54 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:51 alphafuzard wrote:On October 10 2009 11:46 cUrsOr wrote:
"over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho. erm what? The 9/11 attacks were committed by the Taliban, not the U.S. government, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, in which case discussion is moot. And what wars with what other countries pray tell? Even if you don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, there's even less proof that it was done by the "taliban."
The people they fund and train and shelter claimed responsibility. It's like when the IRA claim responsibility for a bombing people hold Sinn Fein responsible. They're the same organisation, just one the political wing and the other the militant one.
|
On October 10 2009 11:59 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:56 BalliSLife wrote:On October 10 2009 11:47 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote:
Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting? Lobbyists, bankers, glenn beck (lol), loud townhall republicans, blue dogs etc etc That doesn't seem to stop him on his crusade for Cap and Trade, Public Healthcare, etc. Secondly, is Glenn Beck, or Barack Obama President? I see you are trying to deflect responsibility off the man who is directly responsible to others. If "the man" himself, is not responsible who is? That is to say, if the person making the decisions for the actions of the US is not responsible for those direct actions, who is?
Ya but you have people like glenn beck who compares hitler to obama and brainwashes everyone who watches his show. Just cause he is president it doesn't give him that much power over all these lobbyists that have the money to do whatever the f they want with country
|
On October 10 2009 12:03 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:01 cUrsOr wrote:
Though it does look a bit off topic talking soley about the total effect of the wars. He did inherit them... in all fairness... he just isn't down-scaling them like I had hoped. if you're implying pulling out, that isn't exactly the best option....
Why not? We pretty much dismantled Al-Qaeda. We were never supposed to, or at least shouldn't have, gone after the Taliban. Our goal was Al-Qaeda. Now look at the war. It is draining American coffers, killing American men and women for Nation-Building, which Gen. McChrsytal said would take decades, and, is showing signs of increasing. Also, it isn't exactly a positive thing in the Middle Eastern viewpoint. I wouldn't like French troops in Canada who are attacking countries adjacent to them. I also wouldn't like foreign troops on American soil. Look at Vietnam. 30 years after we pulled out, we trade with them, we talk to them, we travel there. It is peaceful. Commerce and Economics show's that open free trade tends to disincentivize any aggressive behavior.
If Al-Qaeda ends up attacking us again then either: 1) Declaration of War by Congress or 2) Marque and Reprisal
You can't have a War on Terrorism. Terrorism is an idea. You can only defeat idea's with other idea's, not by force. How do you think America spread it's liberalism (Classical Liberalism) throughout the world in the 19th century? Mostly, by the idea, being the example, showing people a better way. The places where we did force it, look at what happened. Japan ended up attacking us years later, and secondly, it was partially because we had Economic Sanctions against them; Oil Embargo. We need to trade and travel with everyone. Spread our views by peaceful means. Just means. Not at the end of a gun, that never works.
|
Lol you're right, vietnam is so peaceful when millions of them die first
|
On October 10 2009 12:11 BalliSLife wrote:
Lol you're right, vietnam is so peaceful when millions of them die first
....what?
|
On October 10 2009 12:04 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:59 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 11:56 BalliSLife wrote:On October 10 2009 11:47 Aegraen wrote:On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote:
Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting? Lobbyists, bankers, glenn beck (lol), loud townhall republicans, blue dogs etc etc That doesn't seem to stop him on his crusade for Cap and Trade, Public Healthcare, etc. Secondly, is Glenn Beck, or Barack Obama President? I see you are trying to deflect responsibility off the man who is directly responsible to others. If "the man" himself, is not responsible who is? That is to say, if the person making the decisions for the actions of the US is not responsible for those direct actions, who is? Ya but you have people like glenn beck who compares hitler to obama and brainwashes everyone who watches his show. Just cause he is president it doesn't give him that much power over all these lobbyists that have the money to do whatever the f they want with country
Actually it does. The President has specific enumerated powers. The lobbyists do not. It just shows Obama has no principles. He goes where the money takes him. How is that conducive to a Peace Prize? All you have to do is pay him, or throw more money in that direction.
How many people watch Glenn Beck? A few million? There are 300+ million people in America. Obama is Totalitarian. I think comparison to others is moot, doesn't promote the problem in any positive way, and leads to more partisanry where there otherwise may not be. All you have to do is make the moral arguement, show how everything that pretty much takes place in America today is against everyone's will. Show how his policies are the same as Bush's, and show through history how his Economic policies have lead to turbulent economic periods, extended the problem, and in fact, increased the problem.
Debt Monetization is never good. Fiat money is never good. I'm surprised it lasted 38 years to be honest.
|
@Aegraen
I'm aware you can't physical harm an ideal, I always thought the "War on Terror" was a term used to get people riled up anyways.
I guess I don't really know much about the war since I just read the news, but the situation in the middle east sounds pretty fragile and I'd think that pulling out would make the area more vulnerable. After we invaded Afghanistan the first time we shifted to Iraq a bit later, and then Al-Qaeda just came back after we left -- which is why we went back.
I'm not saying it is worth it, but I'm not sure if the rest of the world would like to see us just leave without really accomplishing much. Or have we? I never hear good news about the war.
|
wait, Aegraen you're not for public healthcare?
|
From wikipedia:
According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."[
How about giving considering him after he actually acheives something? It's a bob on the nob, and nothing more.
|
United States43867 Posts
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen?
|
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen?
i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such...
that was highschool, but iono.
|
On October 10 2009 12:20 eMbrace wrote:
@Aegraen
I'm aware you can't physical harm an ideal, I always thought the "War on Terror" was a term used to get people riled up anyways.
I guess I don't really know much about the war since I just read the news, but the situation in the middle east sounds pretty fragile and I'd think that pulling out would make the area more vulnerable. After we invaded Afghanistan the first time we shifted to Iraq a bit later, and then Al-Qaeda just came back after we left -- which is why we went back.
I'm not saying it is worth it, but I'm not sure if the rest of the world would like to see us just leave without really accomplishing much. Or have we? I never hear good news about the war.
The people of the Middle East for the most part rejected what Zarqiwi was trying to accomplish. It all started with Sayyid Qutb. Why do you think they were based in Afghanistan? All other Middle Eastern countries either expelled them, or executed them. Now, that America is there, imposing our beliefs, interfering with their Sovereignty, of course the people of the Middle East would be united against that. Just like Americans would be united if the same thing happened in our country or in adjacent countries. In fact, if you watch Powers of Nightmares it gives you a good picture of the conflict.
Iraq didn't attack us. Afghanistan didn't attack us. It's like if the IRA attacked America we wouldn't be fighting against Ireland, would we? Would we then go over there and tell the people of Ireland that you are now going to do this, this, and this. Do you think they wouldn't say, no, we don't want or believe in that? Do you think they may fight back?
This isn't people who believe in what Al-Qaeda does. It's direct retaliation against American Foreign Policy. The thought we can spread our ideals at the end of a barrel. We caused this ourselves, through our Foreign Policy. We should have never interfered in the Soviet-Afghan war, we should have never interfered in Iranian policy (We brought the Shah to power). We should have never gone along 100% with whatever Israel does.
Are you fighting for pride, or are you fighting for a just reason?
Lastly, we never left Afghanistan. Sure, we had less troops in Afghanistan, but we never left there. Al-Qaeda is/was a nuissance, but it was never a serious threat to America. We should never give up any liberty, because of fear. Secondly, all those thwarted "Terrorist plots" weren't terrorist plots, and just about every single one has been thrown out of court. If you actually look into it, you'll see how blatantly mis-represented it is. You'll see, the reason the politicians on both sides, trump this up, is because fear gives them more power than they otherwise would have. Power is the name of the game.
|
On October 10 2009 12:22 BalliSLife wrote:
wait, Aegraen you're not for public healthcare?
Ha. I think this is sarcastic, but no I'm not. I'm not for the compulsory State either. I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, but that is neither here nor there.
|
On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen?
Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US.
I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America?
Where did you study your history Kwark?
|
United States43867 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:29 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? i learned we had rough relationships with japan due to our presence in the phillipines and embargos on oil and such... that was highschool, but iono.
Japan was an expansionist imperialistic power with dreams of racial superiority and a global empire. This was not caused by sanctions, it was caused by innate problems with Japanese culture. What it meant was that at some point Japan was going to try and kill millions of people around them.
What needed to happen was the United States, Britain and France needed to collectively tell Japan that that shit wasn't on. Unfortunately at first people who believed what Aegraen believed had power in the United States and then by the time the United States realised what was up (after Japan invaded Manchuria) Britain and France were already distracted by Germany. The United States tried to intervene through sanctions because Japan was going batshit crazy, Japan didn't go batshit crazy because of sanctions.
There is actually some history to the area that precedes Pearl Harbour. I know Americans don't care about any of that stuff but Japan actually attacked Korea in 1910.
|
It seems to me like the Nobel Peace Prize is being used as a political tool to make the governments actions seem more "approved".
Before saying the president didn't do anything, you should consider that a president also has to appease the corporations who hold America by the balls(as well as all rival politicians). It's really hard to drastically change things without having a degree of autocratic power. it's not like Obama has some kind of magic touch or anything.
|
United States43867 Posts
On October 10 2009 12:35 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 12:26 Kwark wrote:
Yeah, the problems with Japan in WWII were caused by American sanctions on Japan and not the result of insufficient intervention in Japan. Right...
Where did you study history again Aegraen? Did you read what I wrote? The problem was two-fold. One, interventionism into Japan. Secondly, was embargo's. The oil embargo was the last straw for the Japanese, and was it's final consideration for entering the war against the US. I'm curious, why do you believe Japan attacked us? Do you think Japan would have attacked us, if we had free trade and travel with Japan? Do you think they would have attacked us, if we didn't try to make them a vestige of America? Where did you study your history Kwark?
Japan was already butchering people by the hundreds of thousands when the oil embargo happened. You seem to have got cause and effect mixed up. Cause precedes effect. Hope that clears things up for you.
And I'm currently studying it at the University of Liverpool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
