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.
Of course every nation has responsibility for its own actions, but that has nothing to do with how powerful a country is. The only sense in bringing up the fact that the U.S. is a super power is to suggest that they have some special responsibility for the well being of other nations in general, which I think is what bobthebuilder was responding to. I really don't understand how anyone can respect Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky at the same time though. I suppose if your endorsement of capitalism is nothing more than a tradeoff for foreign policy.
There's a debate on Fox tonight, which may be the last debate to have any meaningful impact upon the campaign. I'm expecting Romney to start making his victory lap and Gingrich to come out swinging with reckless abandon to knock Romney down.
On January 17 2012 03:56 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: [quote]
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 05:37 NPF wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:29 Eppa! wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:16 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:11 Eppa! wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:37 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:34 hmunkey wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:25 Eppa! wrote:
On January 17 2012 03:56 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: [quote]
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.
Of course every nation has responsibility for its own actions, but that has nothing to do with how powerful a country is. The only sense in bringing up the fact that the U.S. is a super power is to suggest that they have some special responsibility for the well being of other nations in general, which I think is what bobthebuilder was responding to. I really don't understand how anyone can respect Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky at the same time though. I suppose if your endorsement of capitalism is nothing more than a tradeoff for foreign policy.
I am sorry it must be my English. I am saying a country has responsibility in relation to their power; poorer countries have less means than richer ones.. I am saying they have the same responsibility for their action in the same way NATO or other Annex 1 countries. I don't really agree with either fully. I am a left wing Swede. I do not support Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul.
On January 17 2012 03:56 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: [quote]
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 05:37 NPF wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:29 Eppa! wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:16 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:11 Eppa! wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:37 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:34 hmunkey wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:25 Eppa! wrote:
On January 17 2012 03:56 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: [quote]
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.
Of course every nation has responsibility for its own actions, but that has nothing to do with how powerful a country is. The only sense in bringing up the fact that the U.S. is a super power is to suggest that they have some special responsibility for the well being of other nations in general, which I think is what bobthebuilder was responding to. I really don't understand how anyone can respect Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky at the same time though. I suppose if your endorsement of capitalism is nothing more than a tradeoff for foreign policy.
Bob has this fantasy view of the world that says if we leave Afghanistan today after screwing them so hard, everything will be peachy. I believe as a superpower that we should always have some sort of presence in the world, but only as a deterrence and rare actor. Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes in this scenario, and now we must put on big boy pants until the matter is acceptably resolved.
On January 17 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote: There's a debate on Fox tonight, which may be the last debate to have any meaningful impact upon the campaign. I'm expecting Romney to start making his victory lap and Gingrich to come out swinging with reckless abandon to knock Romney down.
If it is meaningful at all. I tried listening to the last debate and shut if off after hearing a repeat of everything I've heard before. There's been so many debates that to actually get new content from the candidates, they'd need to shift to a different format that allows a longer discussion. Formal debate style or something.
The main thing with these later debates is simply the shifting of talking time/ positions on the platform based on election numbers. It might help solidify who is fringe and who is not, but I doubt we'll see much new minus some potential "oops" moments.
On January 17 2012 04:25 Eppa! wrote: [quote] 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 05:37 NPF wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:29 Eppa! wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:16 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On January 17 2012 05:11 Eppa! wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:37 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:34 hmunkey wrote:
On January 17 2012 04:25 Eppa! wrote: [quote] 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.
Of course every nation has responsibility for its own actions, but that has nothing to do with how powerful a country is. The only sense in bringing up the fact that the U.S. is a super power is to suggest that they have some special responsibility for the well being of other nations in general, which I think is what bobthebuilder was responding to. I really don't understand how anyone can respect Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky at the same time though. I suppose if your endorsement of capitalism is nothing more than a tradeoff for foreign policy.
Bob has this fantasy view of the world that says if we leave Afghanistan today after screwing them so hard, everything will be peachy. I believe as a superpower that we should always have some sort of presence in the world, but only as a deterrence and rare actor. Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes in this scenario, and now we must put on big boy pants until the matter is acceptably resolved.
And you have this fantasy that if we keep invading more countries then we're all going to have a "democracy". I don't think you know what the real world is and how we affect other countries when we bomb them. We have people like chomsky even agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy saying that the theory of blowback is unquestionable. So, tell me again why they are wrong and why a 20 something year old like yourself knows more than them?
He just said: You went to Iraq/Afghanistan for stupid reasons and never should have gone in... But now, after you went in and made most stuff there worse many people actually except you to fix them and not just leave because it gets expensive...
On January 17 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote: There's a debate on Fox tonight, which may be the last debate to have any meaningful impact upon the campaign. I'm expecting Romney to start making his victory lap and Gingrich to come out swinging with reckless abandon to knock Romney down.
If it is meaningful at all. I tried listening to the last debate and shut if off after hearing a repeat of everything I've heard before. There's been so many debates that to actually get new content from the candidates, they'd need to shift to a different format that allows a longer discussion. Formal debate style or something.
The main thing with these later debates is simply the shifting of talking time/ positions on the platform based on election numbers. It might help solidify who is fringe and who is not, but I doubt we'll see much new minus some potential "oops" moments.
It's hard to call them 'debates' at all to begin with. 30 second soundbite into 45 second soundbite into direct pandering. It's tragic how shallow this whole election process is becoming. Is Ron Paul racist? Does Mitt Romney not love his dog? When is Newt marrying again? Who won the debate where nothing was said?
Tune in tomorrow in the revolving soap opera that's election coverage :/.
On January 17 2012 08:19 Velr wrote: Ahm, thats not at all what he just said?
He just said: You went to Iraq/Afghanistan for stupid reasons and never should have gone in... But now, after you went in and made most stuff there worse many people actually except you to fix them and not just leave because it gets expensive...
Yeah, I think I support this idea. It's one reason I supported our Conservatives over the NDP on Afghanistan. (That Canada should keep troops there.) I don't like the bellicose policy on Iran- particularly as Israel has said a couple times that they are capable of taking on Iran. And the continual meddling and supporting one dictator or the other seems to have done more harm than good. However, if we're going to do empire, we might as well do it right and see it through. Sort of the 'we broke it, we pay for it.'
Of course that's one reason why I doubt democracies will ever be good empire builders as empire doesn't function very well on an election cycle. But I'm sure there's a lot of Cold World era bases that could be rolled up. For the same reason that we don't need Mahan's system of coal supply depots across the world. The Cold War is over, which bases are truly needed and which ones aren't.
On January 17 2012 08:19 Velr wrote: Ahm, thats not at all what he just said?
He just said: You went to Iraq/Afghanistan for stupid reasons and never should have gone in... But now, after you went in and made most stuff there worse many people actually except you to fix them and not just leave because it gets expensive...
Ive debated him before on the USA foreign policy of American Imperialism. He's for it and says that it's good to spread "democracy" to other countries and get them to conform. I argued that our Imperialism is not good in the long run and will bankrupt us like what Osama did to the soviets. This is exactly what Osama wanted to happen to the US and hes succeeding...
On January 17 2012 08:19 Velr wrote: Ahm, thats not at all what he just said?
He just said: You went to Iraq/Afghanistan for stupid reasons and never should have gone in... But now, after you went in and made most stuff there worse many people actually except you to fix them and not just leave because it gets expensive...
Ive debated him before on the USA foreign policy of American Imperialism. He's for it and says that it's good to spread "democracy" to other countries and get them to conform. I argued that our Imperialism is not good in the long run and will bankrupt us like what Osama did to the soviets. This is exactly what Osama wanted to happen to the US and hes succeeding...
The taliban took control of afghanistan, they did not cause the collapse of the USSR
This is what he said
On January 17 2012 03:34 aksfjh wrote:
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.
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.
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?
Either I've done a terrible job at expressing myself or you've got a terrible understanding of my post . This is not what you should derive from my post . Actually, It's so weird to read like it seems that I explained stuff about apples and know you explain my I don't like pears ...
Talk about twist and turn ;D Lol dude hopefully you were on eatable when you replied to me :D
On January 17 2012 08:19 Velr wrote: Ahm, thats not at all what he just said?
He just said: You went to Iraq/Afghanistan for stupid reasons and never should have gone in... But now, after you went in and made most stuff there worse many people actually except you to fix them and not just leave because it gets expensive...
Ive debated him before on the USA foreign policy of American Imperialism. He's for it and says that it's good to spread "democracy" to other countries and get them to conform. I argued that our Imperialism is not good in the long run and will bankrupt us like what Osama did to the soviets. This is exactly what Osama wanted to happen to the US and hes succeeding...
The taliban took control of afghanistan, they did not cause the collapse of the USSR
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.
I know what he said and you don't know your history. I'll just leave this here for you:
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?
For the record, China and USSR trained and supplied the Viet Minh before USA got involved. Ho Chi Minh even said that he prefered a french occupation over a chinese one, but he accepted China as allies because they supported his ideologies. If you think USA was acting imperialistic in Vietnam, you're wrong. It was China and USSR who were the imperialists. When USA retreated all their troops in the 70's, and cut back on the aid, they abandoned the South Vietnamese people, who didn't want to be a part of a oppressive communistic regime, but couldn't defend themselves, because the North was much better supplied and organized, thx to receiving backup from the eastern block. The South was later overrun by the North, despite the fact that USA had promised to help if the north tried to advance. USA abandoned the war because the ppl didn't support it, not because it wasn't a war worth fighting for. As the North was advancing across the South, thousands of southern civilians were flooding the airport and harbors.
It was a dirty war and USA was held back by the terrain, which prevented them from taking advantage of their advanced weaponry, but plz don't speak of them moving out of Vietnam as if that was the obvious right thing to do.
Vietnam have had terrible growth until recently, when they started adopting a market economy, but the communism is still deeply rooted, and they are still way behind for instance China in terms of westernization.
If you criticize the Vietnam war, you're also criticizing the Korean war, because both wars had identical backgrounds, with a extremist nationalistic communistic group starting out by fighting against the imperials (japan/france) and then using their war veteran reputation to get a backing from the ppl to fight against "the resistance", the ppl who wanted a more westernized style of government.
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?
Either I've done a terrible job at expressing myself or you've got a terrible understanding of my post . This is not what you should derive from my post . Actually, It's so weird to read like it seems that I explained stuff about apples and know you explain my I don't like pears ...
Talk about twist and turn ;D Lol dude hopefully you were on eatable when you replied to me :D
We agree on this. It was mostly to try and let you explain it in another way, so you do not come off as completely insane.
On January 17 2012 08:19 Velr wrote: Ahm, thats not at all what he just said?
He just said: You went to Iraq/Afghanistan for stupid reasons and never should have gone in... But now, after you went in and made most stuff there worse many people actually except you to fix them and not just leave because it gets expensive...
Ive debated him before on the USA foreign policy of American Imperialism. He's for it and says that it's good to spread "democracy" to other countries and get them to conform. I argued that our Imperialism is not good in the long run and will bankrupt us like what Osama did to the soviets. This is exactly what Osama wanted to happen to the US and hes succeeding...
The taliban took control of afghanistan, they did not cause the collapse of the USSR
This is what he said
On January 17 2012 03:34 aksfjh wrote:
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.
I know what he said and you don't know your history. I'll just leave this here for you:
Do you honestly believe that the war against Afghanistan made the Soviet Union collapse? The Soviet Union was a castle made of sand. It collapsed because they finally got a good president (Gorbachev) who wanted to see change and who was willing to let all the previous dirt surface. When the people got to see all the dirt, and they also got the freedom to speak their minds, the collapse was inevitable.
On January 17 2012 08:19 Velr wrote: Ahm, thats not at all what he just said?
He just said: You went to Iraq/Afghanistan for stupid reasons and never should have gone in... But now, after you went in and made most stuff there worse many people actually except you to fix them and not just leave because it gets expensive...
Ive debated him before on the USA foreign policy of American Imperialism. He's for it and says that it's good to spread "democracy" to other countries and get them to conform. I argued that our Imperialism is not good in the long run and will bankrupt us like what Osama did to the soviets. This is exactly what Osama wanted to happen to the US and hes succeeding...
The taliban took control of afghanistan, they did not cause the collapse of the USSR
This is what he said
On January 17 2012 03:34 aksfjh wrote:
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.
I know what he said and you don't know your history. I'll just leave this here for you:
Click your link and go down to the next section, the Soviet Union collapsed because their leaders where incompetent. The Stalinism works differently than the US economy.
On January 17 2012 08:19 Velr wrote: Ahm, thats not at all what he just said?
He just said: You went to Iraq/Afghanistan for stupid reasons and never should have gone in... But now, after you went in and made most stuff there worse many people actually except you to fix them and not just leave because it gets expensive...
Ive debated him before on the USA foreign policy of American Imperialism. He's for it and says that it's good to spread "democracy" to other countries and get them to conform. I argued that our Imperialism is not good in the long run and will bankrupt us like what Osama did to the soviets. This is exactly what Osama wanted to happen to the US and hes succeeding...
The taliban took control of afghanistan, they did not cause the collapse of the USSR
This is what he said
On January 17 2012 03:34 aksfjh wrote:
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.
I know what he said and you don't know your history. I'll just leave this here for you:
Do you honestly believe that the war against Afghanistan made the Soviet Union collapse? The Soviet Union was a castle made of sand. It collapsed because they finally got a good president (Gorbachev) who wanted to see change and who was willing to let all the previous dirt surface. When the people got to see all the dirt, and they also got the freedom to speak their minds, the collapse was inevitable.
On January 17 2012 10:02 ninini wrote: If you criticize the Vietnam war, you're also criticizing the Korean war, because both wars had identical backgrounds, with a extremist nationalistic communistic group starting out by fighting against the imperials (japan/france) and then using their war veteran reputation to get a backing from the ppl to fight against "the resistance", the ppl who wanted a more westernized style of government.
This comparison fails historical scrutiny.
In Korea's case, both the United States and the USSR took out the imperialist aggressor. Governments on both sides of the divide were the creation of the country in charge of said divide. Revolutionary movements against Japan were not primarily communist or capitalist in nature, but were nationalist.
In Vietnam's case...let's just say one side was sending support to the imperialist aggressor, and one side was sending support to the nationalist revolutionaries.
Basically, in Korea's case, it can be seen as two former "helpers" of the revolution fighting each other after the revolution using their respective puppet states. In Vietnam's case, it's most like one side backing a revolution, and the other side backing the remnants of the imperialistic regime. To say that the backgrounds are identical is disgenuous.
EPT
.
