|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 01 2013 04:24 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:On September 01 2013 04:09 Manit0u wrote:On September 01 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:On September 01 2013 03:58 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 01 2013 03:55 Zarahtra wrote:On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote:
We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money. Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably. Go ahead. Demonstrate it. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130727/book-review-town-skewers-washington-dcs-insular-vain-eliteMore people should read this book. Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim. What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things.
DC culture is incredibly insular, and yes, there are many examples of people with their hands in the wrong peoples' pockets, but that does not mean that there are no Republicans and no Democrats.
|
On September 01 2013 03:55 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote:
We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money.
Obama doesn't run Obama. Even if Obama was a decent person, he's got tons of corporate executives and financiers and others telling him what to do. Other parties in the US hold a lot more power in the US govt., believe it or not.
The bribery is largely kept under wraps. Part of it is the fact that Americans tend to be naive/stupid/dgaf, and the other part is that if we expose ourselves as having shittons of corruption, the little legitimacy they have to the US people and to foreign countries will deteriorate.
The difference between the US and say India, is that India, everyone knows there is corruption so it's done in the open and it's not typically in huge amounts. In the US, it's kept under wraps and many people become rather wealthy from it.
|
On September 01 2013 04:24 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:On September 01 2013 04:09 Manit0u wrote:On September 01 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:On September 01 2013 03:58 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 01 2013 03:55 Zarahtra wrote:On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote:
We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money. Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably. Go ahead. Demonstrate it. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130727/book-review-town-skewers-washington-dcs-insular-vain-eliteMore people should read this book. Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim. What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things.
Yeah man it may be fashionable and sophisticated to throw out this Third Way "the two parties are identical" crap, but let's be honest here: any Republican would give his left nut to be alone in a room with Harry Reid for five minutes with no consequences for whatever he did, and any Democrat would do the same if they could get Ted Cruz alone in that same room with the same conditions. Unless we're talking about Republican or Democrat women, then the Republican ones would give their left tit to be in a room alone with Nancy Pelosi or Elizabeth Warren for 5 minutes, and the Democrats would do the same to get Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.
And I don't even want to think about what any Republican would give up for 5 minutes alone with a tied-up Barack Obama, or what any Democrat would give up for 5 minutes with a tied-up George W. Bush.
This "illusion of choice" shit is the worst kind of hipster-enlightened garbage. It's embarrassingly ignorant. If Barack Obama's presidency hasn't clued you in to the deep and viciously held differences between the parties, there's really no hope for you, you're never going to get it.
Obama doesn't run Obama. Even if Obama was a decent person, he's got tons of corporate executives and financiers and others telling him what to do. Other parties in the US hold a lot more power in the US govt., believe it or not.
Hahahahaha.
Name me an organization that holds more power in the US than the US government. Hint: Zero. Zip. Nada. Not a single one.
We're less than 20 years past the US government taking on one of the top 5 most powerful corporations in US history, Microsoft, and fighting it until the bitter end on anti-trust charges.
We're less than 5 years removed from Barack Obama shutting down oil and gas exploration on US federal lands, against the vociferous opposition of the most powerful corporations in the world, energy companies.
We're less than 20 years removed from the US government winning a decade-long battle against what used to be one of the most powerful groups of corporations in US history, tobacco companies.
So what are these corporations and groups more powerful than the US government? I think you're making the typical mistake of thinking "this corporation or group isn't being punished by the government or hasn't been punished enough and I think they should so obviously they must be more powerful than the government." The government doesn't exist to hurt those you think should be hurt because.
The bribery is largely kept under wraps. Part of it is the fact that Americans tend to be naive/stupid/dgaf, and the other part is that if we expose ourselves as having shittons of corruption, the little legitimacy they have to the US people and to foreign countries will deteriorate.
Hahahahaha.
Arguments based on placing yourself on a pedestal above the unwashed masses are derived from ego, not from facts and analysis of them. And that's your implication. You are one of the ones who's figured it out. And that is a great cop-out right there, the bribery is mostly kept under wraps so of course I can't prove it. But come on guys, you know it's true anyway.
The difference between the US and say India, is that India, everyone knows there is corruption so it's done in the open and it's not typically in huge amounts. In the US, it's kept under wraps and many people become rather wealthy from it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The difference between the US and say, India, is that the facts show India to be several times more corrupt than the US.
In the 2012 Corruption Transparency Index the US ranked 19 out of 174. (Lower number is better). India ranked 94 out of 174. The Index is an indirect measure of corruption as it is a measure of perceptions of corruption, but it is globally accepted as being accurate.
Breeze in, spout out some hipster truths that 'everybody knows,' facts be damned, and breeze out. It must be true what you're saying Judicator, it's the fashionable thing to believe!. Again, facts be damned. The US as one of the more corrupt nations around is a political argument based on preconceived political notions. Not facts.
Some of the weirdest things about America, according to a student. From India.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-weirdest-things-about-america-2013-8
Strong ethics — everyone has a lot of integrity. If someone cannot submit their completed assignment in time, they will turn in the assignment incomplete rather than asking for answers at the last minute. People take pride in their hard work and usually do not cheat. This is different from students from India and China as well as back home in India, where everyone collaborates to the extent that it can be categorized as cheating.
Well at least in the academic world we've got India beat on acting corrupt / unethically.
|
On September 01 2013 04:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 03:55 Zarahtra wrote:On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote:
We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money. Obama doesn't run Obama. Even if Obama was a decent person, he's got tons of corporate executives and financiers and others telling him what to do. Other parties in the US hold a lot more power in the US govt., believe it or not. The bribery is largely kept under wraps. Part of it is the fact that Americans tend to be naive/stupid/dgaf, and the other part is that if we expose ourselves as having shittons of corruption, the little legitimacy they have to the US people and to foreign countries will deteriorate. The difference between the US and say India, is that India, everyone knows there is corruption so it's done in the open and it's not typically in huge amounts. In the US, it's kept under wraps and many people become rather wealthy from it.
Most of the corporations don't have to bribe. They can just blackmail. They hold so much power over the economy that it's political suicide to not follow suit.
When it comes to foreign policy, the White House is largely dependent on the military. Especially in the case of someone like Bush or Obama, neither of who have any military experience, and relatively little experience with foreign affairs in general, the military leaders are bound to have a large influence in shaping foreign policy.
As for the youtube video that was posted earlier: I disagree with quite a lot of the conclusions he is drawing, but it is very very obvious that the broadcasting of the attack on Syria is for the sake of diplomacy. You cannot just bomb a country out of the blue nowadays. The US needs Russia and China to tacitly approve. It's not because the US is weak, it's because since Victorian Britain there hasn't been 1 single country capable of dominating the world. The US bombing Syria without at least Russia's silent approval would have serious repercussions and could end in full-blown WW3, and everybody involved knows it. It's why Obama is using harsh rhetoric without actually doing anything. He can't. It's not the US being weak, it's a reality of the modern world: no country can act unilaterally and get away with it.
|
Most of the corporations don't have to bribe. They can just blackmail. They hold so much power over the economy that it's political suicide to not follow suit.
Just like it was political suicide the dozens of times the US government has tangled with corporations over major disputes the last 100 years.
Really guys please pick up a g-d history book this is embarrassing how ignorant you are.
As for the youtube video that was posted earlier: I disagree with quite a lot of the conclusions he is drawing, but it is very very obvious that the broadcasting of the attack on Syria is for the sake of diplomacy. You cannot just bomb a country out of the blue nowadays. The US needs Russia and China to tacitly approve. It's not because the US is weak, it's because since Victorian Britain there hasn't been 1 single country capable of dominating the world. The US bombing Syria without at least Russia's silent approval would have serious repercussions and could end in full-blown WW3, and everybody involved knows it. It's why Obama is using harsh rhetoric without actually doing anything. He can't. It's not the US being weak, it's a reality of the modern world: no country can act unilaterally and get away with it.
That's effing ridiculous.
Iraq.
Libya.
Your entire paragraph wrong in two words.
|
holy conspiracy theories batman! can ANYBODY who has been talking for the last 2 pages or so provide an example of this corruption.. or even a solid piece of evidence?
|
I don't think you get it, Aveng3r, if the conspiracy theorists wanted evidence, they would not be conspiracy theorists.
|
On September 01 2013 04:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 04:24 Manit0u wrote:On September 01 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:On September 01 2013 04:09 Manit0u wrote:On September 01 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:On September 01 2013 03:58 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 01 2013 03:55 Zarahtra wrote:On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote:
We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money. Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably. Go ahead. Demonstrate it. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130727/book-review-town-skewers-washington-dcs-insular-vain-eliteMore people should read this book. Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim. What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things. This "illusion of choice" shit is the worst kind of hipster-enlightened garbage. It's embarrassingly ignorant. If Barack Obama's presidency hasn't clued you in to the deep and viciously held differences between the parties, there's really no hope for you, you're never going to get it.
I see no real difference between US foreign policy during Bush and Obama. Didn't even Obama get a nobel peace prize pre-emptively to further ensure that he will actually make good on his promises? I'm sure it might've even gotten worse.
To me, I see no difference in how US is being run, regardless of who wins the elections. The last 20 years is practically the same shit over and over again, without any noticeable improvements.
|
I see no real difference between US foreign policy during Bush and Obama. Didn't even Obama get a nobel peace prize pre-emptively to further ensure that he will actually make good on his promises? I'm sure it might've even gotten worse.
This has jack shit to do with your assertion that there are no Democrats and no Republicans they are all the same. American foreign policy has remained consistent since the end of WW2 because of a consensus between the parties that lasted until George W. Bush was president.
But, here are two rather big differences on the war-front:
1. If Republicans controlled US government at the moment, we would still have large numbers of combat soldiers in Iraq.
2. If Republicans controlled US government at the moment, we would keep large numbers of combat soldiers in Afghanistan past 2014.
To me, I see no difference in how US is being run, regardless of who wins the elections. The last 20 years is practically the same shit over and over again, without any noticeable improvements.
That's because you're ignorant or unwilling to acknowledge differences. The last 20 years minus 2008-now were some of the best in US history domestically, of course there's going to be little major changes. But those last 20 years have seen a failed push for healthcare reform in 1993-1994, large tax cuts in the middle 90s and in 2003, two large reforms of healthcare policy in the 2000s (Medicare Part D and Obamacare), and many, many court decisions that have wide-reaching consequences for various portions of the relationship between government and non-government entities and individuals.
I've lived in the US the last 26 years and what you're saying is bullshit. US hasn't done what you think it should do so that means it hasn't changed. No, it means it hasn't done what you want.
|
On September 01 2013 04:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Most of the corporations don't have to bribe. They can just blackmail. They hold so much power over the economy that it's political suicide to not follow suit. Just like it was political suicide the dozens of times the US government has tangled with corporations over major disputes the last 100 years. Really guys please pick up a g-d history book this is embarrassing how ignorant you are. Show nested quote +As for the youtube video that was posted earlier: I disagree with quite a lot of the conclusions he is drawing, but it is very very obvious that the broadcasting of the attack on Syria is for the sake of diplomacy. You cannot just bomb a country out of the blue nowadays. The US needs Russia and China to tacitly approve. It's not because the US is weak, it's because since Victorian Britain there hasn't been 1 single country capable of dominating the world. The US bombing Syria without at least Russia's silent approval would have serious repercussions and could end in full-blown WW3, and everybody involved knows it. It's why Obama is using harsh rhetoric without actually doing anything. He can't. It's not the US being weak, it's a reality of the modern world: no country can act unilaterally and get away with it. That's effing ridiculous. Iraq. Libya. Your entire paragraph wrong in two words.
Neither got away with it. Did they? Libya was politically and economically isolated for decades, and Iraq got clobbered in the first (and second) gulf war.
|
On September 01 2013 03:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote:
We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO. The problem with you fine folks is that you perceive a true problem and you give it faulty origins. It's true that some trajectories remain the same when presidencies change but this is due to multiple things.
For the record, while you obviously have a point, it doesn't exactly explain away everything so called "conspiracy theorists" (thank you internet -_-) come across. I would go on and on, but this isn't the "Why is "conspiracy theorist" a dumb word" thread  .
|
On September 01 2013 05:43 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 03:47 Djzapz wrote:On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote:
We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO. The problem with you fine folks is that you perceive a true problem and you give it faulty origins. It's true that some trajectories remain the same when presidencies change but this is due to multiple things. For the record, while you obviously have a point, it doesn't exactly explain away everything so called "conspiracy theorists" (thank you internet -_-) come across. I would go on and on, but this isn't the "Why is "conspiracy theorist" a dumb word" thread .
I don't quite understand what you mean. If you're just saying that my explanation of the US's general path dependence doesn't account for everything conspiracy theorists bring up, I agree. But he was saying that the US's path dependence gave credibility to the whole notion of "shadow government". My point is merely that this "shadow government" he speaks of is not all that hidden, and we most likely know about most of the nooks and crannies of the US governance system, which is clearly and openly not limited to elected officials.
I was tackling that specific argument. I was not denying the existence of the possibility of other conspiracies, although none of the big ongoing "theories" really strike me as particularly convincing. I'd rather not delve into that, though. It's a bottomless clusterfuck.
|
On September 01 2013 04:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 04:24 Manit0u wrote:On September 01 2013 04:10 farvacola wrote:On September 01 2013 04:09 Manit0u wrote:On September 01 2013 04:01 farvacola wrote:On September 01 2013 03:58 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 01 2013 03:55 Zarahtra wrote:On September 01 2013 03:40 dsousa wrote:
We've also seen that Obama on key foreign policy and economic issue is on the exact same trajectory as Bush. Despite his being elected on a different platform;
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO.
Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam.
How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney?
It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything.
You don't really need to go into cospiracy theories when it's right in the open. Members of congress spend up to 70% of their time fund raising for reelections, essentially being legally bribed. Now Obama might be bought slightly less than other presidents since atleast in 2008 his fund raising was for smaller amounts from a large number of donors, but there is simply a huge systematic issue in the US when it comes to politics and money. Err..hes one of the most corporate backed presidents ever. Strike that, he is the most. Demonstrably. Go ahead. Demonstrate it. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130727/book-review-town-skewers-washington-dcs-insular-vain-eliteMore people should read this book. Mark Leibovich is a pretty cool guy, and that book isn't half bad, but it doesn't come anywhere close to proving the previous claim. What it does prove is that people in Washington only care about themselves and their immediate surroundings. It's a state within a state, completely detached from the rest of the country and not giving a damn about it. It's sole purpose is the endless spiral of mutual benefit and enrichment. All they really do is make money for each other and the corps backing them. Lobbyists and media people are living off them too and are a part of this structure (news reporters earning $12 mil a year?). Also, there are no republicans and democrats, it's all the same people just wearing different badges for show and to make you think that you actually have a choice between different things. Yeah man it may be fashionable and sophisticated to throw out this Third Way "the two parties are identical" crap [snip] This "illusion of choice" shit is the worst kind of hipster-enlightened garbage. It's embarrassingly ignorant. If Barack Obama's presidency hasn't clued you in to the deep and viciously held differences between the parties, there's really no hope for you, you're never going to get it.
Normally I don't comment on political stuff because it all tends to be a waste of time, but I do feel compelled to comment on this. Your opinion is all fine and good, but I don't think that anybody, or rather anybody intelligent, is saying that Republicans and Democrat politicians LIKE each other. The idea behind the illusion of choice thing is that they're both the exact same kind of snakes.
Let me use this example. My neighbor on one side, Dave, is a total asshole. My neighbor on the other side, Tom, he's also a total asshole. They hate each other, but they're both still assholes and neither one of them is getting invited to my BBQ. There are things that are generally considered to be Republican ideas that I don't like, and other things that I DO like, and same with things considered to be Democrat ideas. But no matter who you vote for, you're still voting for a snake, and one snake is going to do the same thing the other snake would, whether the two snakes get along or not.
We had Bush for president, then Obama promised he was going to do a bunch of things different. Well first of all most of the things that a politician promises, s/he can't do because that's not part of their job. But under the Obama admin we've had extensions of a lot of Bush policies that were unpopular, and a lot of the stuff that's come to light recently is stuff that people would more have expected from the Bush admin.
No matter who the people elect, that person is going to have professionals and advisers and whatever else and the end result is that either candidate would do roughly the same thing. Some differences here and there, but all in all it's mostly the same thing.
At this point I'm only voting in local elections, everything else is just a bunch of noise to me. You have every right in the world to disagree with me, but it has nothing to do with being trendy or sophisticated or a hipster or any of that. For me, I'm getting very close to 30, I've been paying attention to politics since I was 16 years old, and so far it's all pretty much been bullshit. It's just a bunch of people spouting the same bullshit while telling us why the other guy(s) are much worse and are going to ruin our lives.
|
On September 01 2013 05:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:
what you're saying is bullshit.
Actually, it's not.
|
On September 01 2013 05:56 Djzapz wrote:
we most likely know about most of the nooks and crannies of the US governance system
Does it make me a "conspiracy theorist" if I disagree there ?
But really, lets not derail.
|
On September 01 2013 06:03 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 05:56 Djzapz wrote:
we most likely know about most of the nooks and crannies of the US governance system
Does it make me a "conspiracy theorist" if I disagree there ? But really, lets not derail.
Without derailing this because it loosely pertains to the thread... ish...
No it doesn't make you a conspiracy. Perhaps we don't know as much as we really should - but it doesn't necessarily means there's a conspiracy. It's true that the US government is a very complex thing and it's possible to make an all-inclusive diagram of its power structure. However, if you think there's a secret kind of governance behind the "puppets", then you're a conspiracy theorist. And you're also wrong 
|
On September 01 2013 04:45 Acrofales wrote:
As for the youtube video that was posted earlier: I disagree with quite a lot of the conclusions he is drawing, but it is very very obvious that the broadcasting of the attack on Syria is for the sake of diplomacy. You cannot just bomb a country out of the blue nowadays. The US needs Russia and China to tacitly approve. It's not because the US is weak, it's because since Victorian Britain there hasn't been 1 single country capable of dominating the world. The US bombing Syria without at least Russia's silent approval would have serious repercussions and could end in full-blown WW3, and everybody involved knows it. It's why Obama is using harsh rhetoric without actually doing anything. He can't. It's not the US being weak, it's a reality of the modern world: no country can act unilaterally and get away with it.
Why are you harping (like some others in this thread as well) on about WW3...?
There isn't the slightest chance of WW3 happening anytime soon, let alone in Syria of all places...
NO, Russia isn't going to be falling over its heels in order to "rescue" Syria from western intervention.
NO, China isn't going to sacrifice its economic bubble to save a backwater nation.
NO, the USofA isn't going to supposedly start a global war when it economy is still so shaky.
Even Iran wouldn't go so far to jump into a direct fight with the US. They might be a little bit on the fanatical side, but even they aren't that insane. Also, approval means squat in this day and age. Tell me if there has ever been a point in modern history where "serious repercussions" have actually occurred to nations that have unilaterally taken action (Hint: it's a trick question!).
|
Is there enough support in congress for Obama to get his wish of war?
|
On September 01 2013 07:44 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Is there enough support in congress for Obama to get his wish of war?
A Nobel Peace Prize laureate wishes for law? I scoff at thee!
|
On September 01 2013 07:44 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Is there enough support in congress for Obama to get his wish of war?
Very hard to say. The recent vote regarding the reduction of intelligence funding was surprisingly closer than the supporters thought it would be; that almost passed. That could be an indicator of how unpredictable our congress currently is. Many will argue that politics will come into play with the votes. Even more will argue that national polls here in America (where most polls suggest that we DONT want intervention) don't mean shit, that our representatives will follow their party/lobby positions. Further people will argue that it doesn't even matter what vote is made; eventually Obama will take unilateral action.
My take: a no vote and subsequent no action will be taken until after not only the peace summit has taken place(Sep 6), but also after the rise in interest following the events of the peace summit has taken place. We will wait until people start drifting off back into their normal non-interested lives, then some action will take place.
Unless of course we strike a 'deal' behind closed doors with Russia that Putin and Iran will deal with Syria, where they will essentially "slap the hands of Assad" for doing what he did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
