On January 17 2012 01:22 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @turdburgler First of all you misspelled peace and secondly, how is being anti-war stupid? I don't think you understand how the neoconservatives and neoliberals think in US politics. They want to expand our American Empire, therefore they are not anti-war but, they are for creating this never ending war machine that will stop at nothing to consume the world.
Also, on the chomsky piece......
Chomsky and Paul mostly agree on:
- foreign policy
- media influence
- corporate power
They disagree on:
- economics
Other than that, I don't see why Chomsky had to say something like that about Paul at the end. o_O
you dont need an army to control the world, you need money.
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
On January 17 2012 01:22 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @turdburgler First of all you misspelled peace and secondly, how is being anti-war stupid? I don't think you understand how the neoconservatives and neoliberals think in US politics. They want to expand our American Empire, therefore they are not anti-war but, they are for creating this never ending war machine that will stop at nothing to consume the world.
Also, on the chomsky piece......
Chomsky and Paul mostly agree on:
- foreign policy
- media influence
- corporate power
They disagree on:
- economics
Other than that, I don't see why Chomsky had to say something like that about Paul at the end. o_O
Paul and Chomsky may agree on accomplishing many objectives, but they have fundamentally different values. I definitely wouldn't mistake the two for being remotely similar.
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
Well, it seems as though this Republican race is pretty much over. According to a latest poll, Mitt Romney leads by 11% over Newt Gingrich (32% to Newt's 21%). And with Romney's big lead in Florida which holds 50 delegates, it seems all but over.
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
On January 16 2012 23:23 Velr wrote: Yeah, because foreign policy is all about war.. lol.
I could also just say: "If you haven't attended a diplomat school, you should have no say about foreign policy".... And that would actually make more sense.
Don't you know about our American Imperialism is to build 900 bases in over 130 countries?
Anyways, you should be praising Ron Paul because he quotes your country having an excellent foreign policy to which I agree with.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
I couldn't agree more. Also, Bin laden's goal was to bankrupt us and this is what he said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And nothing is too great for Allah,".
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
I couldn't agree more. Also, Bin laden's goal was to bankrupt us and this is what he said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And nothing is too great for Allah,".
Ron Paul keeps telling people warning people about this and they ignore him... -_-
Bin laden isn't even an issue. Social stability and democracy rarely comes from intervention, most democratic reforms either come through revolution or social reforms. However, leaving Irak and Afganistan is like smearing shit all over the wall at party and leaving. Being a super power should come with responsibility.
I think Ron Paul has the right Idea longterm for foreign policy but time and time again we see how the US have lacked longterm plans for countries which they have invaded. His national politics I am against. But I am Swedish so I guess that is to be expected.
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
I couldn't agree more. Also, Bin laden's goal was to bankrupt us and this is what he said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And nothing is too great for Allah,".
Ron Paul keeps telling people warning people about this and they ignore him... -_-
Bin laden isn't even an issue. Social stability and democracy rarely comes from intervention, most democratic reforms either come through revolution or social reforms. However, leaving Irak and Afganistan is like smearing shit all over the wall at party and leaving. Being a super power should come with responsibility.
Key word is "responsibility" and that responsibility is to our own people at home. Why are we bombing other countries and rebuilding their bridges while ours falls apart? That doesn't make any sense to me sir and you're right about democratic reforms coming from revolutions. Which is why we need to let foreign countries run themselves without touching them. We didn't learn our lesson and we keep doing it time and time again....History keeps repeating itself. =/
I like the foreign policy of my country... Well, i think we are a little to neutral and our banks are sometimes very "questionable" (just make them pay allready...) but in general, i agree with the neutrality.. I see why you would like it for yours and it's actually one of the few things i think Ron Paul has it right (in general, i just think he would "overdo" it).
Imho you can't model american foreign policy (300 million people, biggest economy in the world) after Switzerland (8 Million people, tiny) or other WAY smaller countries. I thnk the USA has to scale it's imperialism back, but completly abandon it? Nahh.... If you want to be a big boy, you have to play with the big boys... You can't try to behave like the little guy in the corner that tries to be "good" with everyone while profiting wherever he can. That just does not work when your the biggest ecnomy on the planet .
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
I couldn't agree more. Also, Bin laden's goal was to bankrupt us and this is what he said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And nothing is too great for Allah,".
Ron Paul keeps telling people warning people about this and they ignore him... -_-
Bin laden isn't even an issue. Social stability and democracy rarely comes from intervention, most democratic reforms either come through revolution or social reforms. However, leaving Irak and Afganistan is like smearing shit all over the wall at party and leaving. Being a super power should come with responsibility.
I believe smearing shit all over the wall and cleaning it up is a responsibility. A superpower can just either smear shit, or clean things up. But if you mean superpower countries should be held responsible to the same degree as other countries I agree.
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
I couldn't agree more. Also, Bin laden's goal was to bankrupt us and this is what he said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And nothing is too great for Allah,".
Ron Paul keeps telling people warning people about this and they ignore him... -_-
Bin laden isn't even an issue. Social stability and democracy rarely comes from intervention, most democratic reforms either come through revolution or social reforms. However, leaving Irak and Afganistan is like smearing shit all over the wall at party and leaving. Being a super power should come with responsibility.
Key word is "responsibility" and that responsibility is to our own people at home. Why are we bombing other countries and rebuilding their bridges while ours falls apart? That doesn't make any sense to me sir and you're right about democratic reforms coming from revolutions. Which is why we need to let foreign countries run themselves without touching them. We didn't learn our lesson and we keep doing it time and time again....History keeps repeating itself. =/
You as the leaders of the world need to take responsibility of your countries actions. From now on you need to let countries run themselves but leaving the mess you have created (this includes things such as environmental issues too) is important for equality and development of the human species.
Why do you want to be a big boy? There are no fucking benefits to this from a financial, social perspecitve and how can you justifiy killing other people for the "greater good".
Ron Paul is spot on when he says we only need military for self defense. We dont need to go out on kill people and conquer countries cus we dislike them.
We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
I couldn't agree more. Also, Bin laden's goal was to bankrupt us and this is what he said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And nothing is too great for Allah,".
Ron Paul keeps telling people warning people about this and they ignore him... -_-
Bin laden isn't even an issue. Social stability and democracy rarely comes from intervention, most democratic reforms either come through revolution or social reforms. However, leaving Irak and Afganistan is like smearing shit all over the wall at party and leaving. Being a super power should come with responsibility.
I believe smearing shit all over the wall and cleaning it up is a responsibility. A superpower can just either smear shit, or clean things up. But if you mean superpower countries should be held responsible to the same degree as other countries I agree.
Yes I was talking about the same as any country that invades another (Especially Annex1 countries). USA has done more harm than good to Afghanistan and Irak you can't leave the country either country as it is now.
On January 17 2012 03:34 aksfjh wrote: [quote] We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
I couldn't agree more. Also, Bin laden's goal was to bankrupt us and this is what he said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And nothing is too great for Allah,".
Ron Paul keeps telling people warning people about this and they ignore him... -_-
Bin laden isn't even an issue. Social stability and democracy rarely comes from intervention, most democratic reforms either come through revolution or social reforms. However, leaving Irak and Afganistan is like smearing shit all over the wall at party and leaving. Being a super power should come with responsibility.
Key word is "responsibility" and that responsibility is to our own people at home. Why are we bombing other countries and rebuilding their bridges while ours falls apart? That doesn't make any sense to me sir and you're right about democratic reforms coming from revolutions. Which is why we need to let foreign countries run themselves without touching them. We didn't learn our lesson and we keep doing it time and time again....History keeps repeating itself. =/
You as the leaders of the world need to take responsibility of your countries actions. From now on you need to let countries run themselves but leaving the mess you have created (this includes things such as environmental issues too) is important for equality and development of the human species.
On January 17 2012 03:34 aksfjh wrote: [quote] We're in too deep now. For the group of people who cry about blowback, many of you don't seem to care about preventing it with what we're involved with now. I agree with limited military involvement in the future, but turning our back on what we're involved in now is more likely to cause more harm than good.
See, this is the kind of attitude that gets us EVEN deeper in the hole. Why not pull back like we did in Vietnam and Iraq? Why do we need to stay there? Our American Imperialism is pretty disastrous policy. The idea of building bases overseas and none stop spending is crazy....
Are you going to tell me that chomsky is wrong too on this too?
The problem with pulling out from a moral perspective is that after setting back the infrastructure, wealth and stability (or minor instability like in Afghanistan) is that a new, worse, dictatorship will return much like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over after soviet. Especially as the former government has lost the war.
Yep. The last time a major power invaded Afghanistan and left, the Taliban took over and radicalized the entire country. Afghanistan prior to the US invasion was arguably one of the worst places in the world to live, especially for women or non-Muslims, but then for Muslim men. The fear is that a similar situation will occur if the US leaves like the USSR did.
Tell us what happened to the soviets?
The US gave weapons to a fanatics that did guerrilla warfare against the USSR and then took over which led Afghanistan into being one of the most oppressed nation in the world. As the social unrest started poping up (like many countries in the middle east) US invaded it again. Setting Afghanistan even further back. Drug market is blossoming and if the US would pull out it would become even worse. There is little political stability.
I couldn't agree more. Also, Bin laden's goal was to bankrupt us and this is what he said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, Allah willing. And nothing is too great for Allah,".
Ron Paul keeps telling people warning people about this and they ignore him... -_-
Bin laden isn't even an issue. Social stability and democracy rarely comes from intervention, most democratic reforms either come through revolution or social reforms. However, leaving Irak and Afganistan is like smearing shit all over the wall at party and leaving. Being a super power should come with responsibility.
I believe smearing shit all over the wall and cleaning it up is a responsibility. A superpower can just either smear shit, or clean things up. But if you mean superpower countries should be held responsible to the same degree as other countries I agree.
Yes I was talking about the same as any country that invades another (Especially Annex1 countries). USA has done more harm than good to Afghanistan and Irak you can't leave the country either country as it is now.
Thats certainly never stopped us before, they just need to be more boot strappy, and less socialist.
On January 16 2012 21:40 kwizach wrote: I thought I'd post this video here, it might interest Ron Paul supporters:
I love how the comments are censored. To be more accurate there aren't any because you can't post.
I don't like that guy. Why ? "I think Ron Paul , I would have dinner with that guy but his ideas are savage". Really ? Really ..........? You would have dinner with some1 who has savage ideas ? This is the kind of mentality who stops guys like me from not supporting Ron Paul because everyone who comes to it just bring ad hominem arguments and they have the rationalist reductionist sent, which I dismiss completely.\
I'm probably not the guy to talk to about Ron Paul because I really don't care enough to do all the research about his policies and how they would actually affect things in the country because I'm not an American . But coming with such a video is worse than that "let him die" video.
Plus I don't know who that guy was so he has zero credibility from my side . Yeah , wikipedia won't do any good for me. I don't think there is even a guy for example who I'll trust like that anyways .
For me for example it's ok to know that people like Joe Rogan or Bryan Callen support him ... Yes, the fucking fear factor guy and the guy from The hangover...because they don't take themselves very seriously. Let's talk about real politics ? What the hell is that supposed to mean anyways ? Conservative guys never get along, liberal guys never get along, libertarian people never get along. Literally all ideologies have fights inside them , no1 agreeing on anything and ALL OF THEM having false premises about the nature of the human being. Yeah ... I'll put my money on a rather free society, not a nany state who teaches us we are not responsible for our actions and get bust into our houses at every given time without a warrant if there is a strong enough suspicion .
How is it an ad hominem attack when he discusses the ideas which he finds savage? I have no idea how you managed to stitch together so much drivel. Furthermore, if Chomsky or educated people's opinion in general doesn't matter to you then why the fuck does Joe Rogans? If you're not smart learn from people who are. If you are smart, educate yourself. Taking Joe Rogans views on politics as your own is as smart as taking a hobos advice on finances. If anything you are making an ad hominem attack on Chomsky, rather than discussing what he actually said.
I don't usually enjoy Chomsky but he's pretty spot on.
I really can't stand Chomsky. He lives in fantasy land, which hardly provides a sound basis for any type of policy.
Absolutely agree, but thankfully the video was about Pauls views and what Chomsky thought about them rather than Chomskys own.
1. I don't trust "Joe Rogan's" view on politics because he doesn't have one. What I've said is that I trust the guy that a guy I respect likes. His "love" for Ron Paul is not derived from politics but rather smelling that lack of bullshit, at least compared to the other guys.
2. Trust educated people ? What does that even mean ? Trust educated, smart and honest people ... It's probably hard to discern all of these characteristics really so that's why I said I don't really trust "educated" smart people because it's not in their agenda to help me understand a particular view . Or at least I don't believe it is anyone's desire to do so. Especially trusting an academic person seems rather tricky to me because of the evolution of his ideology in a particular environment which I don't like that much. It's a personal thing obviously, it's rather retarded to repeat again that it's merely my perspective and if it doesn't help you, just ignore me.
3. In all fairness tho you can't make strong arguments in 2 minutes so you know ... everything he has said simply .. if it's true ... He said that F = mg without explaining it, so there's nothing for "us Ron Paul supporters" to gain from that video..
I love how the comments are censored. To be more accurate there aren't any because you can't post.
I don't like that guy. Why ? "I think Ron Paul , I would have dinner with that guy but his ideas are savage". Really ? Really ..........? You would have dinner with some1 who has savage ideas ? This is the kind of mentality who stops guys like me from not supporting Ron Paul because everyone who comes to it just bring ad hominem arguments and they have the rationalist reductionist sent, which I dismiss completely.\
I'm probably not the guy to talk to about Ron Paul because I really don't care enough to do all the research about his policies and how they would actually affect things in the country because I'm not an American . But coming with such a video is worse than that "let him die" video.
Plus I don't know who that guy was so he has zero credibility from my side . Yeah , wikipedia won't do any good for me. I don't think there is even a guy for example who I'll trust like that anyways .
For me for example it's ok to know that people like Joe Rogan or Bryan Callen support him ... Yes, the fucking fear factor guy and the guy from The hangover...because they don't take themselves very seriously. Let's talk about real politics ? What the hell is that supposed to mean anyways ? Conservative guys never get along, liberal guys never get along, libertarian people never get along. Literally all ideologies have fights inside them , no1 agreeing on anything and ALL OF THEM having false premises about the nature of the human being. Yeah ... I'll put my money on a rather free society, not a nany state who teaches us we are not responsible for our actions and get bust into our houses at every given time without a warrant if there is a strong enough suspicion .
How is it an ad hominem attack when he discusses the ideas which he finds savage? I have no idea how you managed to stitch together so much drivel. Furthermore, if Chomsky or educated people's opinion in general doesn't matter to you then why the fuck does Joe Rogans? If you're not smart learn from people who are. If you are smart, educate yourself. Taking Joe Rogans views on politics as your own is as smart as taking a hobos advice on finances. If anything you are making an ad hominem attack on Chomsky, rather than discussing what he actually said.
On January 17 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
On January 17 2012 00:53 HellRoxYa wrote:
On January 16 2012 21:40 kwizach wrote: I thought I'd post this video here, it might interest Ron Paul supporters:
I don't usually enjoy Chomsky but he's pretty spot on.
I really can't stand Chomsky. He lives in fantasy land, which hardly provides a sound basis for any type of policy.
Absolutely agree, but thankfully the video was about Pauls views and what Chomsky thought about them rather than Chomskys own.
1. I don't trust "Joe Rogan's" view on politics because he doesn't have one. What I've said is that I trust the guy that a guy I respect likes. His "love" for Ron Paul is not derived from politics but rather smelling that lack of bullshit, at least compared to the other guys.
2. Trust educated people ? What does that even mean ? Trust educated, smart and honest people ... It's probably hard to discern all of these characteristics really so that's why I said I don't really trust "educated" smart people because it's not in their agenda to help me understand a particular view . Or at least I don't believe it is anyone's desire to do so. Especially trusting an academic person seems rather tricky to me because of the evolution of his ideology in a particular environment which I don't like that much. It's a personal thing obviously, it's rather retarded to repeat again that it's merely my perspective and if it doesn't help you, just ignore me.
3. In all fairness tho you can't make strong arguments in 2 minutes so you know ... everything he has said simply .. if it's true ... He said that F = mg without explaining it, so there's nothing for "us Ron Paul supporters" to gain from that video..
As I read it, this post is extremely disturbing:
1. So you trust in god because he is someone your friend, the preacher likes?
2. Basically you are saying that if facts are not in the agenda to help you understand "a particular view" you do not trust them? So no fact-bullshit, just propaganda for x, where x is something you find reasonable or your preacher finds reasonable?
3. The video shows arguments for your particular view, but there is no real information in it?
EPT
.
