|
On January 03 2012 14:06 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 13:30 aksfjh wrote:On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote:
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States. Of course I understand the power of the USAF and the mobility of our naval fleet, but it's not about simply being able to respond within 24 hours. It's not about being able to retaliate to avenge a crippled ally, or to give support to rebel forces against a delegitimized government. It's about preventing violence from breaking out in the first place. Without even a phone call, air power can be dispatched to aid an ally being attacked by surprise. Rangers can be sent in a matter of minutes to locations to aid in an attack/defense. In this situation, the offensive country can't just pray for non-intervention from the U.S. after their "raid/exercise" is finished, since the minute they show aggressive action within the range of a U.S. base, the U.S. is involved. I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives. And again, if we withdrew from international bases, and Russia decided to attack Germany, for instance, it's not our problem. We shouldn't be responsible for ensuring everyone plays nice. I know this isn't a favorable view by most people, but most people only pretend to care about the well-being of others. I, at least, have the balls to admit that I'm primarily concerned with the well-being of myself, the people I love, and my nation. With the above said, I'll let it be known that I'm not entirely heartless when it comes to the woes of other nations. I do feel for them, and I do help out when I can (for instance, I donated over $1000 dollars to both Japanese and Haitian earthquake relief programs, how many pro-intervention Americans can say that?), but I stand by my belief that we can not be held responsible for everyone else's issues.
The vast majority of conflicts on the African continent are far beyond the ability of the United States to address in any serious sense, barring the usual method of training local forces and equipping them.
Moreover, the idea that the US only selectively intervenes when it serves a financial interest is a popular one for people to believe, but it really is far too one-sided and simplistic. American foreign policy has never been realpolitik and barring a period under Kissinger and a spattering of decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, idealism has been a continual theme in the conduct of foreign policy since at least Monroe.
Secondly, there is a strange tendency for many people to think American actions abroad have to be either realistic or idealistic, but that simply isn't true. Look at the Monroe doctrine: it promoted the national interest of the United States by stating unequivocally that the western hemisphere would fall under American hegemony, but it served a moral good by guaranteeing the independence and self-actualization of former colonies from European intervention. At this point, people love citing those silly lists of all the American "interventions" in Latin America as if those incursions somehow negate the latter point (which they don't), but that's not here nor there.
Think of it like a glove: the national interest envelopes and is expressed in many ways, and that interest can fit both realistic expectations and idealistic dreams without being contradictory or ineffectual. The Monroe doctrine served to fulfill both realistic requirements of statecraft and at the same time upheld the American commitment to self-determination, so long as the latter does not place the US in any jeopardy.
|
On January 03 2012 14:54 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 14:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 03 2012 12:04 Saryph wrote:On January 03 2012 11:59 ryanAnger wrote:On January 03 2012 11:45 Saryph wrote:On January 03 2012 11:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:I'll just leave this here... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wmpeN.png) Biased picture is biased. Check out http://www.opensecrets.org/index.phpSearching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there. Uh... After going to the link you provided, I found the exact same information as the picture about Ron Paul: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00005906 . Biased =/= inaccurate. It's all about showing the same information for all the candidates, not listing 'CONCERNED CITIZENS' for one person and not the others. It implies that either the other candidates receive no money from citizens, or such a small numerical amount it is not even listed on the chart. It's listed from most to least, so it's not really biased unless Obama's "concerned citizens" category would have made the cut (I have no idea if it would have or not) All of my facepalms are directed at you. Even if you're too lazy to read the source material, you could at least be bothered to read the posts you're quoting, which have the answer to your question in them.
Actually, I never asked a question, but please quote the quote in the posts I quoted that displays Obama's actual "concerned citizens value" to prove you don't deserve all the facepalms because I don't see it. You sure you're not the one who failed to read a post correctly?
If it implies that the numerical amount is so small that it shouldn't be listed on the chart, then either the implication is based on fact (which makes it not really biased at all, just a presentation of facts), or it is not based on fact and therefore is biased. Nowhere in the posts I quoted is an actual reference to Obama's actual values. Do you understand now?
|
RON PAUL 2012
- 2046
gogo dictator
|
On January 03 2012 15:11 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 14:06 ryanAnger wrote:On January 03 2012 13:30 aksfjh wrote:On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote:
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States. Of course I understand the power of the USAF and the mobility of our naval fleet, but it's not about simply being able to respond within 24 hours. It's not about being able to retaliate to avenge a crippled ally, or to give support to rebel forces against a delegitimized government. It's about preventing violence from breaking out in the first place. Without even a phone call, air power can be dispatched to aid an ally being attacked by surprise. Rangers can be sent in a matter of minutes to locations to aid in an attack/defense. In this situation, the offensive country can't just pray for non-intervention from the U.S. after their "raid/exercise" is finished, since the minute they show aggressive action within the range of a U.S. base, the U.S. is involved. I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives. And again, if we withdrew from international bases, and Russia decided to attack Germany, for instance, it's not our problem. We shouldn't be responsible for ensuring everyone plays nice. I know this isn't a favorable view by most people, but most people only pretend to care about the well-being of others. I, at least, have the balls to admit that I'm primarily concerned with the well-being of myself, the people I love, and my nation. With the above said, I'll let it be known that I'm not entirely heartless when it comes to the woes of other nations. I do feel for them, and I do help out when I can (for instance, I donated over $1000 dollars to both Japanese and Haitian earthquake relief programs, how many pro-intervention Americans can say that?), but I stand by my belief that we can not be held responsible for everyone else's issues. The vast majority of conflicts on the African continent are far beyond the ability of the United States to address in any serious sense, barring the usual method of training local forces and equipping them. Moreover, the idea that the US only selectively intervenes when it serves a financial interest is a popular one for people to believe, but it really is far too one-sided and simplistic. American foreign policy has never been realpolitik and barring a period under Kissinger and a spattering of decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, idealism has been a continual theme in the conduct of foreign policy since at least Monroe.
This is something I have to disagree with. If this were actually the case, then we'd be going after Saudi Arabia the same way we went after Iraq and shortly, Iran. Saudi Arabia has some of the worst civil rights violations in the world occurring there on a daily basis and Islamist extremism is rampant there. But we look the other way because of financial interests there.
|
How does everyone call Ron Paul isolationist? I don't know. Just a few years ago, a large portion of the mainstream republican party was admitting that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and now they want to do the same to Iran under the same pretenses, and somehow to break this chain is to be an isolationist?
And I know people are going to bring up how he wants to leave UN/NATO, but that's only because he doesn't want to sell out the nation's sovereignty... America has the sole power to declare war on a country (as America,) why do you want to give some entity the right to declare war on America's behalf? War is not a thing that should be taken lightly, it brings poverty, suffering, and retaliation.
|
On January 03 2012 15:36 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 15:11 Elegy wrote:On January 03 2012 14:06 ryanAnger wrote:On January 03 2012 13:30 aksfjh wrote:On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote:
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States. Of course I understand the power of the USAF and the mobility of our naval fleet, but it's not about simply being able to respond within 24 hours. It's not about being able to retaliate to avenge a crippled ally, or to give support to rebel forces against a delegitimized government. It's about preventing violence from breaking out in the first place. Without even a phone call, air power can be dispatched to aid an ally being attacked by surprise. Rangers can be sent in a matter of minutes to locations to aid in an attack/defense. In this situation, the offensive country can't just pray for non-intervention from the U.S. after their "raid/exercise" is finished, since the minute they show aggressive action within the range of a U.S. base, the U.S. is involved. I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives. And again, if we withdrew from international bases, and Russia decided to attack Germany, for instance, it's not our problem. We shouldn't be responsible for ensuring everyone plays nice. I know this isn't a favorable view by most people, but most people only pretend to care about the well-being of others. I, at least, have the balls to admit that I'm primarily concerned with the well-being of myself, the people I love, and my nation. With the above said, I'll let it be known that I'm not entirely heartless when it comes to the woes of other nations. I do feel for them, and I do help out when I can (for instance, I donated over $1000 dollars to both Japanese and Haitian earthquake relief programs, how many pro-intervention Americans can say that?), but I stand by my belief that we can not be held responsible for everyone else's issues. The vast majority of conflicts on the African continent are far beyond the ability of the United States to address in any serious sense, barring the usual method of training local forces and equipping them. Moreover, the idea that the US only selectively intervenes when it serves a financial interest is a popular one for people to believe, but it really is far too one-sided and simplistic. American foreign policy has never been realpolitik and barring a period under Kissinger and a spattering of decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, idealism has been a continual theme in the conduct of foreign policy since at least Monroe. This is something I have to disagree with. If this were actually the case, then we'd be going after Saudi Arabia the same way we went after Iraq and shortly, Iran. Saudi Arabia has some of the worst civil rights violations in the world occurring there on a daily basis and Islamist extremism is rampant there. But we look the other way because of financial interests there.
Ideals can only be attempted and the realities of the world tempers efforts to achieve them. Saudi Arabia is a useful tool for meeting the needs of the national interest, yet that alone does not mean that idealism is not an integral part of American foreign policy for decades. We can find exceptions, to be sure, but flat out saying American foreign policy is driven solely by financial interest is an opinion that, while appealing in its simplicity, ignores the broader context.
Take Taiwan. Is Taiwan really that important financially to the United States? Sufficiently important to one of the most important points of tension between Washington and Beijing and the risk it involves? No, it's not. But the support of Taiwan is a quintessentially American principle and fulfills one of the "pillars" of our national interest, which is and has always been to promote self-determination. That is a vague goal and one that the US has oftentimes ignored in favor of political realities, but it is a driving force nonetheless, and Taiwan offers an opportunity to fulfill that particular American ideal. Financial and technological benefits exist, but are they worth the sheer amount of tension the American backing of Taiwan generates with China? No.
Or Israel...one can cite statistics stating how Israel is a relatively important trading partner in both military and civilian technology, but the American backing of Israel is hardly rationalized on economic grounds. Israel, similar to Taiwan, offers an opportunity to support an ideal of freedom and self-determination of Israel (the merits of Israel's moral position here are irrelevant and represent a pointless discussion). Support of Israel is the single strongest piece of propaganda utilized by anti-American players in the Muslim world (and certainly globally, not just the Muslim world). Friendship with Israel comes at the expense of positive relations with the rest of the region- by every objective form of measurement, the US would be far better off allied against the admittedly friendless Israel. The Muslim nations have the oil and far more opportunity for American corporations to invest and acquire wealth; Israel is a fully developed and self-sustaining state. Trade with Israel generates however many billions (drops in a bucket, admittedly), but that is a bonus, a result, of backing Israel for ideological reasons. Moreover, the oft-stated idea that the US needs Israel as a staging ground for vaguely-defined "operations" in the region is questionable at best, as the US already has the Saudis in addition to Kuwait and Bahrain for such needs.
Again, realistic requirements of a modern foreign policy are not inherently contradictory to principles of idealism, and the US has a long history of attempting to balance the two, sometimes unsuccessfully but often with great success.
|
In short: We're idealists, unless there's something to be gained. Then it can't be helped, the realities of this world prevent us. Note that gain does not have to mean financially, or that the gain be direct.
|
On January 03 2012 15:03 aksfjh wrote:
I am perfectly content with prioritizing our presence in places which we have a vested security and economic interest, on the grounds that we aren't occupying the territory (or if we are, we are following a path for inevitable independence). That includes places that don't only have raw materials, but also important trading partners (like Germany). Peace time is a great time for the U.S. economy, and it is only within our interest to keep our partners in peace.
I know you are not heartless, and I know that many in this topic are far from it. We have our own ideals and beliefs that influence our opinions on what the best course of action is.
As a foreigner, who is more interested in the foreign politic of the US I really want to ask, if you truly believe that all bases in other countries are made to protect the citizens there. The perfect example here is Germany. From whom do you think, you protect me or the Germans in general?
The Russians? Well, we butt heads from time to time, because Germany is one of the most vocal countries about human rights, but Russia makes tremendous profit from exporting gas and oil to us. Add to that, that the EU is the most important trade partner of them. A possible collapse of the economy of Germany because of a military strike would definitely cause the complete breakdown of the EU, so Russia would cut his own flesh.
The relationship with China is very similar to the one to Russia from Germany´s site, so this possible enemy also goes out of the window.
So whats left? The Islamic countries? Hardly. Even with our troops in Afghanistan (something, which is generally opposed in the german population btw), they still see us as one of the most trustworthy countries in the west and one of the most important trading partners. There is a reason, why Germany often functions as mediator in the middle east. The clear stances of Germany in the iraq and libiya conflicts only brought it closer to them. So aside of the radical islamists (a rather small percentage), who hate everything west related, we are far from being a top target for them.
So, you basically have a country, which has no real enemies, which is completely surrounded by allies, which is according to the bbc country rating poll the best received country in the world for years now. No major country in the world would really profit from going to war with Germany, because they all make good money trading goods with us. We are also no military treat to them. So why would we need protection by the US? Quite frankly, we don´t. The US troops in Germany have completely different reasons for staying there.
The Germans have come to accept the military bases. They have no real effect on the everyday life close to the bases. They are just there, so please don´t compare them to the ones in the middle east, because one thing I´m pretty sure of. If the US would start to drive through normal German cities in their armored cars with MP´s in hand to "protect" the population, the outcry of the German people would be immense, because if they value something highly here, then it is freedom and safety.
|
For the guys who support the current foreign policy of the US . Whatever the reasons for doing so , good or bad ( I believe overall it's financial interest , and I study international affairs , 2nd year by now and I'm bashed constantly with the ideas of why the political system is still good and usefull while also winning enough arguments against my mates and teachers , luckily I have really cool teachers so it's allways nice discutions ) , I think you could all see that this way is not a long-lasting one , you can't support this policy for to long , there simply aren't enough resources and the trust in this system crumbles day by day .. Now there are people , very intelligent individuals who can explain you very well why presence of troops are required in various states and why some wars occured , but to that point there is also heavy economic influence in this actions , sure the USA does not gain from this , but a few people win a lot of money out of this , it's like how the industry evolves , no1 f*cks with the arms industry , with the pharmaceutical industry and the tabbaco industry , it's kind of a status quo and the arms industry gain a huge deal from this wars ... You have enough arguments to stay oversees right now , but you have no good argument to support this position in the near future ... So change is inevitable in that aspect
|
On January 03 2012 11:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:I'll just leave this here...
Obama getting over a million from Goldman Sachs? Ehhh....
|
|
|
On January 03 2012 21:30 gold_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 11:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:I'll just leave this here... Obama getting over a million from Goldman Sachs? Ehhh....
What those stats even mean? Like US Army, Navy and Airforce supporting Ron Paul? That means soldiers or what? I have hard time beliving US armed forces as institutions are allowed to support presidential candidates. And what about US governemnt? I understand there might be a reason to support all candidates, but why does the amounts differ in this case? What are they based off?
Ps. The more i think about it the more ridiculous it gets...how can individual donations to Obama's campaign not add to much more than that 5mil $ of Ron Paul?
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 04 2012 00:00 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 21:30 gold_ wrote:On January 03 2012 11:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:I'll just leave this here... Obama getting over a million from Goldman Sachs? Ehhh.... What those stats even mean? Like US Army, Navy and Airforce supporting Ron Paul? That means soldiers or what? I have hard time beliving US armed forces as institutions are allowed to support presidential candidates. And what about US governemnt? I understand there might be a reason to support all candidates, but why does the amounts differ in this case? What are they based off? Ps. The more i think about it the more ridiculous it gets...how can individual donations to Obama's campaign not add to much more than that 5mil $ of Ron Paul?
Because 'Concerned Citizens' is an arbitrary designation that hides the donators' place of employment for the purpose of a propaganda poster. Obama and Romney don't get that benefit, because the poster maker didn't want them to have it.
|
I thought so, but i had to ask, my knowledge of US campaign funding laws is limited to say the least.
|
It's a useless graph...  Just remember where Obama got large sums (even the largest sum?) of his 08 presidential campaign from. Exactly. Citizens (hopeful citizens back then instead of concerned, but still citizens...)
|
On January 03 2012 11:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:I'll just leave this here...
If you look it up, the numbers are 6,000,000 $. Get your facts straight!
Now if you compare to Romney and Obama, the picture is approximately:
Paul, Romney, Obama
"Concerned citizens": 6,000,000 $, 3,000,000 $, 41,000,000 $
Of total funds: 48%, 10%, 48%
Perry has only 4% of his contributions from small contributers and same goes for Huntsman with a measle 170,000 $ from small contributers!
Gingrich and Santorum has almost no campaign going for them compared to Perry, Romney and Paul. They seem to get a lot of freebees from the media instead.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
Now you have the real numbers. Go make your propaganda from those please!
|
On January 03 2012 15:59 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 15:36 ryanAnger wrote:On January 03 2012 15:11 Elegy wrote:On January 03 2012 14:06 ryanAnger wrote:On January 03 2012 13:30 aksfjh wrote:On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote:
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States. Of course I understand the power of the USAF and the mobility of our naval fleet, but it's not about simply being able to respond within 24 hours. It's not about being able to retaliate to avenge a crippled ally, or to give support to rebel forces against a delegitimized government. It's about preventing violence from breaking out in the first place. Without even a phone call, air power can be dispatched to aid an ally being attacked by surprise. Rangers can be sent in a matter of minutes to locations to aid in an attack/defense. In this situation, the offensive country can't just pray for non-intervention from the U.S. after their "raid/exercise" is finished, since the minute they show aggressive action within the range of a U.S. base, the U.S. is involved. I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives. And again, if we withdrew from international bases, and Russia decided to attack Germany, for instance, it's not our problem. We shouldn't be responsible for ensuring everyone plays nice. I know this isn't a favorable view by most people, but most people only pretend to care about the well-being of others. I, at least, have the balls to admit that I'm primarily concerned with the well-being of myself, the people I love, and my nation. With the above said, I'll let it be known that I'm not entirely heartless when it comes to the woes of other nations. I do feel for them, and I do help out when I can (for instance, I donated over $1000 dollars to both Japanese and Haitian earthquake relief programs, how many pro-intervention Americans can say that?), but I stand by my belief that we can not be held responsible for everyone else's issues. The vast majority of conflicts on the African continent are far beyond the ability of the United States to address in any serious sense, barring the usual method of training local forces and equipping them. Moreover, the idea that the US only selectively intervenes when it serves a financial interest is a popular one for people to believe, but it really is far too one-sided and simplistic. American foreign policy has never been realpolitik and barring a period under Kissinger and a spattering of decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, idealism has been a continual theme in the conduct of foreign policy since at least Monroe. This is something I have to disagree with. If this were actually the case, then we'd be going after Saudi Arabia the same way we went after Iraq and shortly, Iran. Saudi Arabia has some of the worst civil rights violations in the world occurring there on a daily basis and Islamist extremism is rampant there. But we look the other way because of financial interests there. Take Taiwan. Is Taiwan really that important financially to the United States? Sufficiently important to one of the most important points of tension between Washington and Beijing and the risk it involves? No, it's not. But the support of Taiwan is a quintessentially American principle and fulfills one of the "pillars" of our national interest, which is and has always been to promote self-determination. That is a vague goal and one that the US has oftentimes ignored in favor of political realities, but it is a driving force nonetheless, and Taiwan offers an opportunity to fulfill that particular American ideal. Financial and technological benefits exist, but are they worth the sheer amount of tension the American backing of Taiwan generates with China? No.
That's not true, it hasn't always been there, it's only been there since like the Cold War, and it was a huge blunder to adopt such a "pillar"
Also, Taiwan let's us have bases near China.
Or Israel...one can cite statistics stating how Israel is a relatively important trading partner in both military and civilian technology, but the American backing of Israel is hardly rationalized on economic grounds. Israel, similar to Taiwan, offers an opportunity to support an ideal of freedom and self-determination of Israel (the merits of Israel's moral position here are irrelevant and represent a pointless discussion). Support of Israel is the single strongest piece of propaganda utilized by anti-American players in the Muslim world (and certainly globally, not just the Muslim world). Friendship with Israel comes at the expense of positive relations with the rest of the region- by every objective form of measurement, the US would be far better off allied against the admittedly friendless Israel. The Muslim nations have the oil and far more opportunity for American corporations to invest and acquire wealth; Israel is a fully developed and self-sustaining state. Trade with Israel generates however many billions (drops in a bucket, admittedly), but that is a bonus, a result, of backing Israel for ideological reasons. Moreover, the oft-stated idea that the US needs Israel as a staging ground for vaguely-defined "operations" in the region is questionable at best, as the US already has the Saudis in addition to Kuwait and Bahrain for such needs.
Again, realistic requirements of a modern foreign policy are not inherently contradictory to principles of idealism, and the US has a long history of attempting to balance the two, sometimes unsuccessfully but often with great success.
Backing Israel is the epitome of US's foreign policy concentrating on defending private interests, as having a strong military ally there is crucial to the entire expedition in the middle-east that masquerades itself under the pretense of promoting our national security and liberating the recruitment grounds of Al Queda while we systematically avoid conflicts with Saudi Arabia, and start endless wars which syphon Billions of dollars from our tax-payers into the military-industrial complex.
|
On January 04 2012 01:06 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 11:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:I'll just leave this here... If you look it up, the numbers are 6,000,000 $. Get your facts straight! Now if you compare to Romney and Obama, the picture is approximately: Paul, Romney, Obama "Concerned citizens": 6,000,000 $, 3,000,000 $, 41,000,000 $ Of total funds: 48%, 10%, 48% Perry has only 4% of his contributions from small contributers and same goes for Huntsman with a measle 170,000 $ from small contributers! Gingrich and Santorum has almost no campaign going for them compared to Perry, Romney and Paul. They seem to get a lot of freebees from the media instead. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.phpNow you have the real numbers. Go make your propaganda from those please!
wow , does that mean that Obama's campaign costed like 85,000,000 $ !? Jeesus ... Also about propaganda ... I prefer propaganda from individuals than from the media . The media is owned by 3 corporations , hmm , well it was so a few years ago Idk now , and now they all mock and isolate Ron Paul depending on the case or time . Why would they do so ? Why don't they do this for the other candidates ? Sure all of the get mocked at times for their retarted mistakes , but the focus on Ron Paul is much greater . Banks and corporation heavily supported Obama and now the same corporation have gotten bigger or survived in times when they shouldn't have ... Obviously his agenda is heavily directed by special economic interest . Now Ron Paul wants to end the FED and cut taxes and reduce foreign operations , say whatever you want about this but one thing is for sure , this would heavily damage the richest corporations in America , so he is getting heat from the media , the same media owned by the same corporation that get money of specific activities .
It's impossible to be objective here anyways , libertarians such as myself will support Ron Paul even tho I disagree on some points with him , and rationalist reductionists will never support him because they already transfered loyalty to a specific ideology . I think this debate is useless and ultimately the better appealing idea will win the election , and I think after all this frustration and lack of trust in the US government , the people want someone like Ron Paul in office ... If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) .
|
I think it costed much more......
|
On January 04 2012 03:51 bOneSeven wrote:
If Obama gets elected again .. this would mean that the american people are suffering of amnezia , everything he has said he will do , he did not do ( I know some things that he promised were impossible ultimately because he alone can't change that much , but in some cases he could have intervened and made change for the best , passing NDAA is a strong example of it ) .
I'm not particularly concerned about Obama winning reelection. All signs are pointing towards a Jimmy Carter-type loss and an absolute disaster for democrats in the House and Senate races. Obama's numbers have been consistently low and the economy isn't going to improve any time soon to give him a significant bump. Hell, just look at all of the democratic politicians that have recently announced that they're not seeking reelection, the latest being Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They know what's coming, even if they won't publicly admit it (not that I would admit it if I were in their shoes).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
