DeletedUser34
hahahahahha...a fellow Jimmy Kimmel fan!!!
I saw this and about fell out of my chair laughing!!!!
I saw this and about fell out of my chair laughing!!!!
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Liberty
Active Member
Good for him.
I'm not painting anything but the truth, Hellstrom. You are making it personal. What's up with that?
Obama followed Bush's timeline for withdrawal. He didn't do anything special at all. What's more, there are troops and one heck of a lot of contractors left over there in that Taj Mahal embassy of ours.
Speaking of Obama, ya just gotta love his Kill List, eh?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/four-more-drones-obama/
Even when it means taking out 16 year old AMERICAN kids.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/24/...nsible-father-if-he-wants-us-not-to-kill-him/
Yes, indeed, it's Obama, the peace president.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/four-more-drones-obama/
Uh, last time I checked, we were still in Afghanistan.
Yeah, we assisted and protected the hell outta them.
"Humanitarian efforts" is an excuse for using our military to attack and overthrow the governments of sovereign nations and putting someone in that is more to the establisment's liking.
Don't you ever wonder why they are all concerned about the people in some countries and totally ignore others?
Yes, it was great when he finally spoke up. I do agree with you on that.
Where we apparently have a strong disagreement is on the proper use of our military. I believe our military is to be used for our own national defense. That our government should be friends with all, trade with all and not entangle alliances with any. That means no foreign aid for anyone. None. Zada. Zip. I think we should get our own act together, which means to get our federal government back under the Constitution both in size and scope, which will get rid of the crony-corporatism, the debt and reinstate our civil liberties. Then, proceed to act like a nation that used to serve as the beacon of liberty for people around the world and become again, something they want to emulate.
You apparently believe the exact opposite. It was Woodrow Wilson who came up with the idea to spread "democracy" around the world at the point of a gun. It has never worked. Did you realize that it is this failed idea that the neoconservatives, many former Trotskyites, latched onto when they were in the Democratic Party and then when given an opportunity, saw an opening to take over the conservative movement in the Republican Party and did it.
We were never intended to be an empire and we certainly were never intended to be globo-cop. Look around you. Look at what our country is becoming. Don't you think it's time we got back to the principles that once made us the envy of the world? Not a one of those principles involved overthrowing sovereign nations that have not attacked us. Not a one.
Last edited:
DeletedUser3
Your interpretation of the truth is a bit askew of the facts and evidence. Also, not making anything personal, just pointing out what you're doing.
This is incorrect. Bush explicitly did not imply an exit strategy until the Democratically held Congress essentially gave him no other choice but to accept a draw down. If you have evidence to dispute this, by all means present it.
You have either outdated information or an amazing conspiracy theory going on. The last official report is less than 16,000 personnel assisting in heavy diplomatic efforts and serving to protect the embassy in a largely hostile environment, which would be halved. Discussions and statements by Obama, from the White House and the Pentagon since have indicated a reduction already occurred to less than 10,000, reducing U.S. troops to 3,500. If this information is inaccurate, by all means present your evidence. ~ (click here and here)
Unbeknownst to the general public, there are still persons hellbent on causing harm to the U.S., and whose manner is atypical. They hide within populated regions, thereby preventing troop deployment to take them out without considerable danger to U.S. troops and significant potential harm to innocents. It is further encouraged by a tacit acceptance by Pakistani, Yemen to Somalian governments, who know the local resistance to U.S. troop deployment, but otherwise recognize the effectiveness of drones as a means to address the threat posed by terrorists harboring within their borders. I.e., it provides a means for these governments to "turn a blind eye" to these actions, so as to stay politically clean.
The battle against Al Qaeda is not a normal conflict. It cannot be fought against a single nation, nor against a particular region. Information is obtained through sources and spies, drones with their advanced sighting units (cameras, etc) verify the information. It's not pretty, but it's a lot cleaner than any "war" fought prior, and we're not losing troops on the ground for it. This is important on many levels, but mostly it is incredibly demoralizing to the enemy and is substantially reducing their urge to raise "jihad" against the U.S.
Dismiss this fact and you deny the reality of the circumstances we are presently in.
Robert Gibbs was an idiot, but what he as attempting to state is that this boy's father had renounced his citizenship and become a senior Al Qaeda operative. Keeping his family near him was irresponsible, particularly since he knew he was being targeted by the U.S. It comes back to the issue of many of these persons shielding themselves within populated regions, hiding behind innocents, holding babies in front of them as shields. His father endangered his son's life by keeping his son close to him.
It is obvious the U.S. did not target his son. The information they received indicated the locations he would be. Obviously some of the information wasn't optimal and innocents were killed. I would love to be callous and dismiss it as collateral damage, but I'm not like that. I hate the fact any person is killed, foreign or domestic. But keep things in perspective. With Bush' war, the U.S. military actions in Iraq killed well over 1,000,000 innocent people. The alternative, the one being managed by Obama, has dramatically reduced "collateral damage" and, in fact, been far more effective in removing the "real" targets.
If you wish to disparage Obama for not being a "peace" President, perhaps you should stick to the facts of the circumstances he is in. Bush Jr. started two wars, armed over 2 million ex-soldiers and ex-police in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and essentially inferred a holy war with his incessant religious statements, such as "sword of justice," etc.
Perhaps a reminder of true warmongering: "My answer is bring them on." --Bush Jr. on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003
A few more reminders of Bush Jr. statements:
Two days after 9/11: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001
Just six months later: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
And shortly before leaving office: "So what?" –President Bush, responding to a an ABC News correspondent who pointed out that Al Qaeda wasn't a threat in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded, Dec. 14, 2008
So, yes, indeed, it's Obama as the peace president, in sharp contrast to the man and the administration that escalated this issue to such a degree we're now in a greater conflict with a greater force than previously existed. Where there were only a thousand untrained sheepherders, we now have an ongoing conflict with thousands of both untrained and trained, thoroughly agitated by the invasion of two Middle East countries and the killing of over 1,000,000 innocents.
You want an end to that, change history. Go back in time and don't vote for Bush Jr. the first, and then the second time. A man who, driven by neoconservatives at his side, likewise drove our nation into a cesspool of deplorable behavior, both internationally and nationally. It was the Bush administration that initiated the wars, it was the Bush administration that initiated the Patriot acts, it was the Bush administration that performed waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, domestic wiretapping, Guantanamo, etc and so on.
It is convenient to blame Obama, because he walked into that cesspool and promised to clean it up. But with 4 years, all of which were hampered by a hostile GOP, as well as him being a target of racism, he essentially only had two years to get things done, and those two years went quick before the GOP gained the House and gridlocked the government for two years in a "gamble" they would win the 2012 Presidential elections.
Well, they lost, and so did the U.S. It lost two years of productivity, two years of healing, two years of getting things done, two years in which the Obama administration had to compromise to the point of sacrificing their core intentions in an effort to address other needs more prominent at the time. There is ample evidence I can present for this, but let us not try and paint the picture that he is a warmonger, for it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, a convenient blind eye to the history that preempted his entry into office, and an acquiescence to the GOP's actions that have surely harmed this nation, both during Bush's terms and during Obama's term.
I am in agreement and disagreement. We should indeed give foreign aid to other nations, but in the form of medical aid, food aid, and housing aid, and infrastructure aid. Our mistake is always pulling out guns and either using them or trading them for concessions. Well, I would like to call it a mistake, but it seems to be a longstanding policy.
I am not keen with how things are being managed at this time, nor do I feel great for Obama continuing some of the conflicts that we would all like to go away. But, as I stated before, these conflicts were caused by Bush Jr. who, rather than taking 9/11 in a direction of international support and productive outreach, used it as a means to infiltrate and invade other nations. Obama was left with the mess of the hornets' nests Bush Jr. had roused. We are left with the hardship of realizing our greatest dreams are once again put on hold to try and extricate us out of yet one more dirty war.
Obama's actions are largely circumstantial, not policy-driven. They are due to the circumstances that were created by a ' moron and his neoconservative cronies, whom you and I both agreed had placed us in a horrible place, internationally and domestically. So while I do agree with some of your assertions about the crap we're still in, I do not agree as to the blame, nor as to the notion we can put down our swords and return to our plows. We have a mess created by a warmongering administration (Bush Jr. administration) and laying down our weapons is not going to cause that mess to just "go away."
The issue here is no longer neoconservatism striving for international cop status. It is addressing an enemy hiding on foreign soil and plotting harm against U.S. citizens. Attacks on U.S. embassies, U.S. vessels, U.S. civilians and military, and on U.S. soil... this is what their intentions are. We can sit and wait until it happens, or we can pursue them while they conspire. They have already indicated their intent, so it's not a matter of preemptive strike.
If there was a means to reason with them, to find compromise, I would be all for that direction. I have not seen such an option. If you have, by all means lets discuss it. But your argument that we should just turn away from all that and focus on rebuilding our nation is reckless. After over 30 years in martial arts and conflict resolution, I have amply learned the lesson of never turning your back on an enemy, even after you think you've reached a compromise.
I also think it is imperative to realize the U.S. government, and Obama's administration, is capable of multi-tasking. We are capable of rebuilding this nation whilst addressing the threats to this nation's economy and democracy. I cannot, in all sanity, think we must put all our men to the task of rebuilding this nation, repairing its construct and intentions, whilst dancing blindly through the minefield of international tensions.
Do you?
DeletedUser
http://news.yahoo.com/drone-of-sile...at-obama-and-romney-wont-debate-10251296.htmlRobert Gibbs was an idiot, but what he as attempting to state is that this boy's father had renounced his citizenship and become a senior Al Qaeda operative. Keeping his family near him was irresponsible, particularly since he knew he was being targeted by the U.S. It comes back to the issue of many of these persons shielding themselves within populated regions, hiding behind innocents, holding babies in front of them as shields. His father endangered his son's life by keeping his son close to him.
It is obvious the U.S. did not target his son. The information they received indicated the locations he would be. Obviously some of the information wasn't optimal and innocents were killed. I would love to be callous and dismiss it as collateral damage, but I'm not like that. I hate the fact any person is killed, foreign or domestic. But keep things in perspective. With Bush' war, the U.S. military actions in Iraq killed well over 1,000,000 innocent people. The alternative, the one being managed by Obama, has dramatically reduced "collateral damage" and, in fact, been far more effective in removing the "real" targets.
If you wish to disparage Obama for not being a "peace" President, perhaps you should stick to the facts of the circumstances he is in. Bush Jr. started two wars, armed over 2 million ex-soldiers and ex-police in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and essentially inferred a holy war with his incessant religious statements, such as "sword of justice," etc.
This is where I disagree with Hellstromm. I find this use of drones as impersonal terrorism enacted from a point of safety a lethal warmongering response not a defence against terrorism.
DeletedUser
You guys are throwing the word 'Warmongering" around with out knowing its meaning. Obama has not encouraged nations to go to war with anyone. The United States was already in Iraq and Afghanistan before Obama took office. We're not at war with any nation by the very definition of the word war. Nor has Obama lead us to war with any nation in the four years he's been President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
Now to the meat of the matter... It would be extremely irresponsible for us to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq with out making sure that both of these countries are able to sustain peace through out their own countries. While I understand all the nuances that are conclusive to each of these two countries. It seems we forget our own history or are not inclined to read about.
The first time we went to the middle east, under Bush Sr., we did a half fast job and left the Iraqi people at the mercy of a blood thirsty dictator who's only claim to fame was organizing terrorist factions and keeping them from splintering through out the region. The Iraqi people hated us for leaving and not saving them from Saddam Hussein. I have first hand knowledge of this, I was their.
Before that we abandoned the Afghan's after supplying them with arms like the portable heat seeking missile to take out the Soviet HIND helicopter, mainly the Mujahideen or as you may know them now as the Taliban. After leaving the Mujahideen to fight and protect themselves without our support they formed the Taliban. You can look all that up and read the history, but to make this a short point, we're at fault.
So now we have to clean up a mess we created years before 'Dubya' was in office. While I wish we could just pull out of these countries, I know that if we do with out making sure they are self sustaining we'll have to go back. I just don't know why we don't look at our past and learn from it.
If you want to watch a really good movie that was pretty dang accurate watch Charley Wilson's War. Remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
DeletedUser3
Hmm, An opinion piece heckling the same ill-chosen words posed by that idiot Gibbs. I was thinking you were going to present something new.
The facts are, Al Qaeda still poses a threat as demonstrated by the recent Al Qaeda attack on our Syrian embassy. At the time of this particular incident, in which the son of an Al Qaeda senior operative who had renounced his U.S. citizenship to kill U.S. citizens, the son being a 16 year old boy of U. S. citizenry, was unintentionally killed while a U.S. military pilot and his team of recon specialists, using drones, were remotely attacking Al Qaeda compounds is incredibly sad. It is sad that the Al Qaeda senior operative placed his son in jeopardy by posting him at an Al Qaeda compound, it is sad a U.S. citizen renounced his citizenship to attack and kill U.S. citizens. It is likewise sad that the intelligence information obtained did not indicate the young man was there, sad that the recon specialists did not see him through the drone's sophisticated camera arrays, and finally it is sad he lost his life.
I will not play down his death, but he was not the target and his death was not intentional.
I will now say one thing that bothers the living crap out of me...
Over 1,000,000 Iraqi innocent men, women, elderly, children and babies were killed or died as a result of actions committed by U.S. military personnel in less than 5 years during what has been labeled, "Rumsfeld's War."
It appalls me that Americans repeatedly ignored the full-scale slaughter of over a "million" innocent Iraqis on their own soil and in their own homes, in a war committed with manned planes in the sky and boots on the ground, but rise in wholesale riot about one U.S. young man who was unintentionally killed by a "human piloted" unmanned drone while he was housed inside an Al Qaeda compound.
The hypocrisy of argument is astounding, baffling, disturbing. That a single American life harboring with the enemy should be so much more important, and so much greater an evidence of warmongering, than the murder (many times intentional) of so many Iraqis in their livingrooms --- once again, men, women, elderly, children, and babies.
Perspective...
Let me ask one question SLange. You claim that an unmanned, "human piloted" drone is an impersonal terrorist tool. But, is a bullet through the brain fired by a U.S. Army sergeant, or a bomb dropped on a home by a U.S. Navy pilot, any more personal? And, is it any less terrifying to those who witness it?
One more question for you. Is it the notion of sportsmanship that you're tying this to? That the enemy should have a sporting chance to shoot back at us? That by using these drones we're taking the fairness out of war? That we're cheating because they vow to kill us and instead we kill them without putting ourselves in harm's way?
Okay, just one more question. A drone is not a robot. It is a man who pilots it. It is a man who presses the trigger. It is a man who stares at the screen and sees the targets --- the enemy who will die for having sworn to kill us. A drone is no more impersonal than a sniper's scope is impersonal, or a rifle's sight is impersonal. So then, what exactly is it that makes you think a drone is impersonal? For that matter, what makes you think a drone is a tool for terrorism while assault rifles, howitzers, tanks, helicopters and jets are just plain "cool?"
DeletedUser
I think you proved your point, but this is not the same as pulling the trigger. In fact Drone pilots feel completely removed from the actual riggers of war. In fact most drone pilots say they have absolutely no emotional attachment after a kill shot, saying it feels more like a video game. And this is a good thing!!
New studies conducted by the Air Force do indicate with the long hours and heavy work load they are getting stressed out. You would think that flying a Drone would attract tons of recruits, but the drop out rate is very high. While it may look cool to fly one, I guess flying one for 18 hours a day gets old... Who knew?:unsure:
Liberty
Active Member
Uh, folks. When you bomb someone for years, killing their mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, then overthrow their government and put a puppet of your choosing in as their leader, it tends to tick people off. This is a lesson most of us learned on the playground from the local bully in 1st grade.
Why is it that so many adults have forgotten this simple lesson?
- - - Updated - - -
It damn well should stress them out. It's not a video game. People are being KILLED.
- - - Updated - - -
What's your excuse for what was done in Libya?
Why is it that so many adults have forgotten this simple lesson?
- - - Updated - - -
It damn well should stress them out. It's not a video game. People are being KILLED.
- - - Updated - - -
What's your excuse for what was done in Libya?
Last edited:
DeletedUser34
BAH...even if he doesn't prove his point, he will logic you to death to where you don't know if you are coming or going
Liberty
Active Member
Ha ha. My interpretation of facts is also held by the former Chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer. You think you know more about the Middle East than he does, do you. lolololYour interpretation of the truth is a bit askew of the facts and evidence. Also, not making anything personal, just pointing out what you're doing.
Double-talk. It was not Obama's plan. He is following a preexisting plan.
Here, in the real world, EIGHT THOUSAND CONTRACTORS and THIRTY FIVE HUNDRED TROOPS are one heck of a lot.
And THIS is the reason why you want foreign aid. So our government can buy off political leaders so that they are allowed to continue warmongering in their countries.
Yes, we have enemies. But, it also doesn't make any sense whatsoever to help build up their forces and that is exactly what we are doing when we intervene in a sovereign nation's affairs that has not attacked us. In fact, it was us doing this in Iran back in the 50s when the CIA overthrew Mossadeqh that gave rise to the crazy mullahs.
Our actions are increasing their ranks.
Sorry, even the 911 Commission report backs up what I said, in addition to the Chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit.
Oh my God, you are seriously sitting there defending the MURDER of a United States citizen without due process of law. More than that, you seem to condoning our President having a KILL LIST to assassinate even more people, INCLUDING U.S. citizens.
Amazing.
Is that your argument? I couldn't stand Bush, either, and for the same reasons. Two warmongering peas in a pod.
Sorry, it is illogical to conclude that Obama is a peace president just because he hasn't quite yet reached the level of warmongering that Bush did.
Is that seriously your argument? wow.
I didn't vote for either Bush. Nice try.
I blame Obama because he DESERVES being blamed for his own actions. The drones, the kill list, the provision in the NDAA where the military can now pick up an American citizen and throw them in a prison camp, FOREVER, with no charges, no lawyer, no trial. Yeah, I have a problem with that and so should you. Would Bush have done the same? Heck yeah, he would have. There is very little difference between the two. That is one of the problems.
Healing? He has driven us completely off the end of the cliff. Yes, he would have had to make difficult choices to really turn things around, but instead of doing that, he made them far worse. For more time to do him any good, that would imply he is heading in the right direction and he most certainly is NOT.
Oh please. The neocons are still running the foreign policy show and our country is being taken down. Since you seem to want to be partisan, let us not forget from whence the neocons came and that was the Democratic Party. We are 16 trillion dollars in debt. We cannot even pay the interest on the debt without borrowing money from Red China. The Federal Reserve is increasing the money supply like there is no tomorrow to intentionally devalue the U.S. dollar, which is the same as them sticking their hand in everyone's bank account and stealing money. That's of course when the FED isn't busy sending our tax dollars to their foreign buddies. There still hasn't been a full audit of the Federal Reserve Bank and it badly needs to be done. There are 30,000 drones that have been approved to be flown in the U.S. to spy on innocent Americans, the president thinks he can assassinate U.S. citizens at will. Yeah, I think we have a few problems, excuse me.
Sorry, but nope. When we give aid to someone else's enemy, it makes US their enemy too. That infringes on our national defense. Plus, if you missed it, we are broke.
I'm sorry, but bull. Look at what Obama did in Libya.
You are the reckless one and your solution is the very thing that led to us being attacked in the first place. And now, it is only adding to the crazies' ranks. When we kill peoples' family members, they tend to listen to people they never would have listened to, before, and they want revenge. Your solution is endangering our national defense and yes, I find that more than reckless.
I've already explained why you are wrong. It's common sense, actually.
First of all our 16 trillion dollar, and growing, debt is our largest threat to our national defense. We should have a strong national defense, but stop acting like the big bully on the block.
We were not designed to be an empire; nor be globo-cop. It was the progressive Woodrow Wilson's idea to spread democracy around the world at the point of a gun. Number one, democracy is not even anything we want for ourselves (our Founders despised democracy as a form of government) and number two, if people in other countries choose to live differently than we have chosen for ourselves, who are we to tell them otherwise and at the end of a gun, nonetheless.
No, as long as another sovereign nation does not attack us, nor poses an immediate threat, how they choose to live is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. As our Founders advised us, we should trade with them (because trading partners typically do not wish harm on the other), be well-wishers to all, but do not entangle alliances. Even George Washington warned us of this in his Farewell Address.
We should have listened, but then again, there was a lot of money to be made by those who benefited from a warmongering foreign policy. And this was exactly what Eisenhower warned us about when he warned us of the military-industrial complex.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
Am at a disadvantage as keyboard broken and having to click on screen so will be brief of necessity. I demonstrated against the Iraq war and participated in demos for peace. I don't believe war solves anything but creates a hatred and bitterness that continues for generations. It's my view politicians use aggression in selling arms, provide support and battle for economic and strategic reasons, basically to rape the world of its mineral wealth and control regimes for its own purposes. In order to achieve public support for these actions the population is fed propaganda usually based on suspect intelligence to whip it up via media who reinforces the terror and fear needed to avoid a public backlash. There is no war on terror there are just acts of war hence warmongering.
DeletedUser
BAH...even if he doesn't prove his point, he will logic you to death to where you don't know if you are coming or going
Or better yet, ask yourself, "What was the topic?" :laugh:
DeletedUser
And you know what, that's awesome. You took time out to demonstrate what you believe. Not very many Americans will take time out to protest and try to change what they feel is an injustice. I applaud you, sir!
Hard to argue your point on Politicians, they certainly know how to twist the facts and cause an uprising of emotions to further their agenda's. But the fact remains, we created a problem that does have to get fixed. Are we doing it in Afghanistan? I can't answer that, nor can any of us until the work is done. The same applies to Iraq. I can tell you that we didn't do it in '85 or '91! That brings up a host of new questions that only time will answer such as, even if we do manage to bring stability to war torn nations will it last? Will we once again be faced with terror on our door step? Arguing the past only exacerbates the presence, so we need to look forward and pray we do the job right, this time. But that's me being an optimist again.:hmph:
Liberty
Active Member
It won't last. It never lasts. Different factions have been fighting in the Middle East forever. We propped up one side and the people will get sick of it, like they always do.
So, unless you are prepared to have U.S. troops own every inch of ground in the world, and somehow believe we have the money to do that, even if you wanted to, what we are doing right now is a fool's errand. Fighting in Afghanistan broke the USSR'S financial back. But, instead of learning from history, we decided to follow in their footsteps.
Fools. America is on its deathbed and some are still clinging to the idea that we can force our will on sovereign nations around the world.
It's going to end. The question is whether we will wait until the dollar completely crashes, or whether we have the brains to try to save ourselves, even just a little bit. Because it is too late in the game to stop the economic travesty that is coming.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
Liberty, You're either Far-Left or a Right-Wing radical. You need to add a bit of Liberal mixed with some moderate. I think your political views would be completely rounded.
I agree that the United States needs to abandon the Empire way of handling foreign affairs. But with that said we still have responsibilities to handle. Unfortunately the last two Bush's cost us a great deal and chances are the next two Presidents will have to figure out a way to pay for it. It has to get done or we're really going to have a mess on our hands when we truly can't afford it.
As far as "Economic Travesty" we just need to legalize marijuana, raise taxes on U.S businesses that manufacture more then 20% in foreign countries, cut taxes on businesses that produce 80% or more in the US and start making the Government smaller. But that's a whole different debate.
I agree that the United States needs to abandon the Empire way of handling foreign affairs. But with that said we still have responsibilities to handle. Unfortunately the last two Bush's cost us a great deal and chances are the next two Presidents will have to figure out a way to pay for it. It has to get done or we're really going to have a mess on our hands when we truly can't afford it.
As far as "Economic Travesty" we just need to legalize marijuana, raise taxes on U.S businesses that manufacture more then 20% in foreign countries, cut taxes on businesses that produce 80% or more in the US and start making the Government smaller. But that's a whole different debate.
Liberty
Active Member
ha ha. I am an American. One who loves her country and understands the principles that once made the country the envy of the world.
Slot that.
Indeed, I agree. But, the way to pay for it is not to continue the militarism that has absolutely nothing to do with our national defense.
We would agree on some things, for sure. But, adding new laws is not the answer. It is getting rid of the ones that caused businesses to leave in the first place and those that give special favor to some, over others. It's called crony-capitalism, or corporatism.
But, at this point, it's going to take much more than that. We are over the ledge and the government still has their feet on the gas pedal...
DeletedUser34
Actually, Iraq was the only questionable war. If anything Bush didn't go far enough in Afghanistan. That was 100% an acceptable military engagement. AND, Bush should have pursued Osama into Pakistan instead of leaving that war and focusing on Iraq.Savage Gun said:
DeletedUser34
I had an epiphany today thanks to a ghost. Liberty's logic is about like saying Germany should stay out of Spain and Greece's affairs. And yet because of the global ramifications, they kinda had no choice but to participate. I think the same thing holds true to a certain extent with dealing with the middle east.
DeletedUser
Hehe, interesting. Germany and Greece/Spain are (willingly) part of the same economic union, share a currency and are attempting to reach an agreement over non-entitled bailout funds. The United States powerhouse and insignificant Iraq are quite firmly distinct, except one has made itself dependant on the free market export of the other... "no choice" in the end I suppose, just like those without home insurance; probably why Powell reluctantly agreed to the whole mess.