It’s over: MPs say the special relationship with US is dead

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Whatever happened to the Gino I used to respect and THOUGHT I was able to discuss things with? I wish we could get him back.

Everything you accused me of is a lie, but I've learned not to expect sense out of you...would be nice if you'd go to another thread to spread your venom. Then again, stay in this one; it's easier to ignore your hate-filled, bigoted insanity.

You need help. We can't give it to you.

---

Everything I said seems pretty true to me, an ugly truth, an uncomfortable truth... but truth none the less


If any country is crying out for " regime change " it is yours... Think of all the effort you put into complaining about your patriot act, or heathcare...

If you managed to force your gov into changing your foreign policy... ALL the other problems go away

Cut Defence spending by a quarter and you have cash money for heathcare, etc, etc, etc



Lovely the way you consistently dismiss any world view you don't share as hate and venom, perhaps you should stay in your comfort zone if you cannot accept the fact that many folk out there have legitimate grievances against your country... and no other way to pursue them except violence. I would like to see a option that has Americans take back control and change things... but you have been on this course, with both of your political partys without deviation for sixty years now... if some internal revolt was going to do something it would have by now... so with that gone what is left?

what would you have the victims of your country do ?... sit around and continue to die, continue to get beat down another decade

I would say it is your view that is not in contact with reality


So go back to your happy thoughts, I really don't think you can handle the reality of the situation

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Okay, so before this goes into truly flamefest territory, I think I should try to clear up a misunderstanding that I think is at the heart of this one.

The way America is acting, it is likely to be bombed and attacked. I think we've seen the consequences of our foreign policy, and I think that THIS is all that Gino is pointing out.

Obviously, I think everyone could agree that if there were a peaceful transition from our prominent and presumptuous and self-destructive and DISASTEROUS efforts abroad, less American soldiers would die, other countries would find us less meddlesome. And that is infinitely preferable to being bombed (unfortunately, it may be inevitable).

Killing innocent civilians not so good, no matter who's doing it, two wrongs don't make a right. This is IMO a lot like American caused casualties in Afghanistan. It's unpopular to say, but I'm going to say it. I don't think we were justified in regime change from the Taliban, and I also think we should have agreed to the Taliban's offers to give up Obama and give him to international courts.

But I don't want to get bombed. I don't want ANYONE to get bombed.

EDIT: You know, TECHNICALLY I meant to say Osama there, but despite the typo it might still be a correct assessment of my feelings. Give me three years and I'll know for certain.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Okay, so before this goes into truly flamefest territory, I think I should try to clear up a misunderstanding that I think is at the heart of this one.

The way America is acting, it is likely to be bombed and attacked. I think we've seen the consequences of our foreign policy, and I think that THIS is all that Gino is pointing out.

Obviously, I think everyone could agree that if there were a peaceful transition from our prominent and presumptuous and self-destructive and DISASTEROUS efforts abroad, less American soldiers would die, other countries would find us less meddlesome. And that is infinitely preferable to being bombed (unfortunately, it may be inevitable).

Killing innocent civilians not so good, no matter who's doing it, two wrongs don't make a right. This is IMO a lot like American caused casualties in Afghanistan. It's unpopular to say, but I'm going to say it. I don't think we were justified in regime change from the Taliban, and I also think we should have agreed to the Taliban's offers to give up Obama and give him to international courts.

But I don't want to get bombed. I don't want ANYONE to get bombed.

EDIT: You know, TECHNICALLY I meant to say Osama there, but despite the typo it might still be a correct assessment of my feelings. Give me three years and I'll know for certain.

---

I agree with nearly everything you said Byte, I go a little further to saying the US has put many into a corner where it is fight or die, and getting chopped down by a drone/tank/bomber is pretty useless when you could do whatever to take some of the people victimizing you with them.

Most people seem to think well Bush is gone, its all over... but this started long before Bush and Obama hasn't even slowed anything down.

Some were shocked I suggest shooting some of those responsible was a good idea, but hell... would going back to the 1930's and shooting a few Nazis be a bad idea?

" The way America is acting, it is likely to be bombed and attacked. I think we've seen the consequences of our foreign policy, and I think that THIS is all that Gino is pointing out. "

Not only likely, but not a bad thing... It is only when the US is attacked people seem to take any notice as to what is going on... Sadly otherwise I fiqure they collectively just don't give a crap... and that hinders change more than anything

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:Whatever happened to the Gino I used to respect and THOUGHT I was able to discuss things with? I wish we could get him back.

Everything you accused me of is a lie, but I've learned not to expect sense out of you...would be nice if you'd go to another thread to spread your venom. Then again, stay in this one; it's easier to ignore your hate-filled, bigoted insanity.

You need help. We can't give it to you.

---

Not fun when someone does it to you, is it ?

Welcome to my world, here on FFF.Net.




Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor


Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Not only likely, but not a bad thing... It is only when the US is attacked people seem to take any notice as to what is going on...

---

Plenty of honest and reasonable people have paid attention to America's actions around the world, and many are critical. The view of America as an evil murderous empire comparable to the nazis has been heard by almost all... it's just been rejected.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Not only likely, but not a bad thing... It is only when the US is attacked people seem to take any notice as to what is going on...

---

Plenty of honest and reasonable people have paid attention to America's actions around the world, and many are critical. The view of America as an evil murderous empire comparable to the nazis has been heard by almost all... it's just been rejected.

Heads should roll

---

Not by all, just hard to make the US the rogue state it is because it is too economically integrated. Give a another ten years of US bullshit and see what folks say

And being critical is all and good...

But has it stopped anything ?

Would there have been so much rejection of the Vietnam war if the US hadn't practiced conscription at the time?

Maybe you should go back to that...

With a personal stake maybe change will become possible because their asses will be on the line even more so

Until that happens...

The song remains the same

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

USA invasions have killed real people. Not theoreticals, but real babies, real women, real innocents. Not by the thousands, but by the millions. As Gino said, imagine 3 million people killed here and you might BEGIN to see the impact we've had on the world. Hell, we spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. "They" could ALL gang up on us and we'd STILL outspend them! What does that say about us???????

Oh, we've had it SO BAD! A few thousand of us were killed!

Compared to everyone else, we're a bunch of friggin' moronic crybabies. It's all very well and comfortable for us to say "Well, I protested", but fat lot of good it does to the millions dead and those we'll kill in the future.

Unlike Gino, I don't think the answer is to bomb us, because we're still frightfully powerful and dangerous, and might go berserk and do a helluva a lot more damage - not only to the rest of the world (which we apparently don't care a fig about) but also to OURSELVES... there is nothing like an outside enemy to cause a nation to go fascist in a blink.

I think... (she speaks slowly as she thinks) the real tipping point will be economic. We will no longer be able to afford our empire, and our military adventurism.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
USA invasions have killed real people. Not theoreticals, but real babies, real women, real innocents. Not by the thousands, but by the millions.

---

That's just flat out absurd.

It's not even worth debating, it's so absurd.


Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor


Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
USA invasions have killed real people. Not theoreticals, but real babies, real women, real innocents. Not by the thousands, but by the millions. As Gino said, imagine 3 million people killed here and you might BEGIN to see the impact we've had on the world. Hell, we spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. "They" could ALL gang up on us and we'd STILL outspend them! What does that say about us???????

Oh, we've had it SO BAD! A few thousand of us were killed!

Compared to everyone else, we're a bunch of friggin' moronic crybabies. It's all very well and comfortable for us to say "Well, I protested", but fat lot of good it does to the millions dead and those we'll kill in the future.

Unlike Gino, I don't think the answer is to bomb us, because we're still frightfully powerful and dangerous, and might go berserk and do a helluva a lot more damage - not only to the rest of the world (which we apparently don't care a fig about) but also to OURSELVES... there is nothing like an outside enemy to cause a nation to go fascist in a blink.

I think... (she speaks slowly as she thinks) the real tipping point will be economic. We will no longer be able to afford our empire, and our military adventurism.

---

Exactly Signy, but the attacks are a big part of that economic drain...

One guy sets his pants on fire... and how many Millions were spent ? Insurance of air carriers goes up, extra security costs, hearings and inquiry's, scanning machines... lmao


A big win, and didn't even require a body count.


I have hopes the attacking force will gain the sophistication to start in on infrastructure targets...

How many electrical substations could be easily knocked out for weeks killing power to swaths of area. Think of the manpower required to guard them all... And then the " contractors " doing the guarding will no doubt shoot some kid out for a run causing even more shit.

Low bodycount, but economic havoc

Maybe folk will wake up yet

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"How many electrical substations could be easily knocked out for weeks killing power to swaths of area."

The government is way ahead of you. There was a story a couple of years ago about a grad student whose thesis was - gee, if I wanted to to create maximum damage, where are the nodes located ? This was for all types of infrastructure - power, communication, water, ground transport etc. Well, the grad student was not allowed to publish or graduate - and the government confiscated the work. Never to be heard of in detail again.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

USA invasions have killed real people. Not theoreticals, but real babies, real women, real innocents. Not by the thousands, but by the millions.

---

Pretty much agree with Auraptor. I think you are happily blurring wars/concepts in your head Signy. You can't bunch all US foreign wars together and add a tally of civilian casualties from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Northern France... The morality of each war is different, so be specific.

Quote:

---

Hell, we spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. "They" could ALL gang up on us and we'd STILL outspend them! What does that say about us???????

---

I think the world outside America is divided into two sets of people - those who think the US is a force for good, and those who think it is a force for bad. I'm a European and I think the US is a big force for good - that's not to say it's perfect or the 'moral leader' of the world, I don't think it is, but were it to vanish from the face of the earth overnight I would feel that the world was a less safe place - and I think most Europeans would feel the same.

I don't share the knee-jerk emotional anti-military reflex common here, but I will concede America can also be a force for bad in the world - as Iraq showed. But you don't have to look that closely at the reality to see that the worst that the US did was clumsily/carelessly set off a chain reaction of violence - and that was what caused the majority of death and devastation. The US didn't put that powder keg there, and it didn't light it on purpose - folly and incompetence achieved that. That's why I think all this talk of war crimes and imperial genocide is sad nonsense. For me it's sad that there are powder kegs in the world, and it's sad that one stupid man can become in charge of a stupendously powerful military, with the power to unseat a government and set one of them off. It will forever keep me nervous of the US (while candidates like Sarah Palin are still around) but it won't equate them with the Nazis in my mind.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"That's why I think all this talk of war crimes and imperial genocide is sad nonsense."

In Iraq the US DID bomb civilians, DID torture prisoners, DID hold family members hostage, and DID kill hundreds of thousands of people ... not to mention DID launch an attack another country by choice. Just 'cause somebody felt like it. I don't know if that amounts to genocide, but it does amount to war crimes.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

The US didn't put that powder keg there, and it didn't light it on purpose - folly and incompetence achieved that.

---

Gosh, that must come as quite a comfort to the families of the dead.

Maybe someone should point out to the families of 9/11 victims that it wasn't all the hijackers' fault - American folly and incompetence allowed them to achieve their goals! I bet it would make them feel a whole lot better about things.



By the way, Gino has an excellent point about the economics of terrorism. Many have tried to point it out over the years, and we generally get shouted down.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"That's why I think all this talk of war crimes and imperial genocide is sad nonsense."

In Iraq the US DID bomb civilians, DID torture prisoners, DID hold family members hostage, and DID kill hundreds of thousands of people ... not to mention DID launch an attack another country by choice. Just 'cause soembody felt like it. I don't know if that amounts to genocide, but it does amount to war crimes.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

If you want an example of genocide, have a look at the end result of the Iraq sanctions over its course...

Even the UN puts the number of dead attributed to the sanctions ( up to 1998 ) at 750,000 children under the age of 17 dead. Start to add in people over 17, and extend the number for the following years.... I would call that Genocide, or mass murder at the least.

In 1995, France wanted to lift the sanctions for humanitarian reasons, plus the inspectors were not finding anything... Blocked by Britain and the US.

I wonder who killed more Iraqis, Bush... Clinton... or Saddam ?

And if some Americans are willing to kill that many people on the ifs and maybes of WMD evidence they supposedly had ( or not ) Fuck Them, they deserve whatever happens to them

And if they are in disgust and horror about the entire affair... then see to it those who were involved see some sort of justice.


In a court room preferably, but if not

Karl Rove, in a bookstore, with a .45

works for me too

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"How many electrical substations could be easily knocked out for weeks killing power to swaths of area."

The government is way ahead of you. There was a story a couple of years ago about a grad student whose thesis was - gee, if I wanted to to create maximum damage, where are the nodes located ? This was for all types of infrastructure - power, communication, water, ground transport etc. Well, the grad student was not allowed to publish or graduate - and the government confiscated the work. Never to be heard of in detail again.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Go for a Sunday Drive

Bet you can identify a dozen great targets on the way to lunch, if you look around with the thought in mind.

Look at the Washington sniper ?

Announce the trucking industry is an infrastructure target

you don't even need to hit anything, firing a shot once in a while will prompt the response you want... convoys of trucks surrounded by troops...

Want to take down a transmission tower ?

You can make Thermite pretty easy

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

---

A reason for evil.

Okay, Operative.

@ Gino- I'm with ya, dude.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

@ Gino- I'm with ya, dude.

---

The US needs to be bombed until these and other criminals are either are dead or handed over. - Gino

2,974

So what ? - Gino




Not even Jessica can save your miserable, worthless soul for that one, Chris.


Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor


Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

DID kill hundreds of thousands of people

---

U.S actions 'killed', or 'led to the death of'? Happily blurring concepts...

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US didn't put that powder keg there, and it didn't light it on purpose - folly and incompetence achieved that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Gosh, that must come as quite a comfort to the families of the dead.

---

Err, well why don't you try comforting the families of Iraqis blown up at marketplaces by telling them they should feel no ill will to Al Qaeda - but instead place all that blame on Bush! Tell them that in effect, George W Bush pressed that trigger.

They would find you perverse and stupid.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Pretty much agree with Auraptor. I think you are happily blurring wars/concepts in your head Signy. You can't bunch all US foreign wars together and add a tally of civilian casualties from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Northern France... The morality of each war is different, so be specific.

---

MOST of our "wars" we fought for control of resources. In almost all cases, we came in on the side of the rich.... corporations, plantation owners, oil sheiks, oligarchs, dictators ... anyone who would provide our corporations with a "business-friendly", non-union, impoverished source of labor or resources.

Indian Wars (genocide)
Spanish-American War
Argentina 1890 Troops, Buenos Aires interests protected
Chile, 1891 Troops, Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
Haiti, 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
Hawaii, 1893 Naval, troops, Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
Nicaragua, 1894, Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
China, 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
Korea, 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
Panama, 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
Nicaragua, 1896,troops, Marines land in port of Corinto.
China, 1898-1900,Troops, Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
Philippines, 1898-1910, Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
Cuba, 1898-1902, Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
Puerto Rico, 1898, Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
Guam, 1898, Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
Nicaragua, 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
Samoa, 1899, Troops Battle over succession to throne.
Nicaragua 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields
Panama, 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.
Honduras, 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
Dominican Republic, 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
Korea, 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
Cuba, 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
Nicaragua, 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
Honduras, 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama, 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
Nicaragua, 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
Honduras, 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
China 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
Cuba 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
Panama 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
Honduras 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
Nicaragua 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
Dominican Republic 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
Mexico 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
Haiti 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
Dominican Republic 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
Cuba 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
Russia 1918-22 Naval, troops landings to fight Bolsheviks
Panama 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
Honduras 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
Guatemala 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
China 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
Honduras 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
Panama 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
China 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
El Salvador 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
Uruguay 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
Greece 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
China 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
Philippines 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
Puerto Rico 1950 Command operation Indepe

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Betcha didn't know we've been so busy, huh?

My god, the way we act, you'd think we were an empire or sumpthin'.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

heres my opinion: only in self defense, in response to an act of aggression, does any nation have the 'right' to go to war. its a principle libertain view to never exert aggression but in direct self-defense. i believe it was the policy for AMerica all along to remain neutral, unless attacked directly. no aid, no allies.. complete neutrality. 'commerce with all, entangling alliances with none' was the early motto of the American founders. it was British common law that introduced the founders to these concepts to begin with! the biblical concept would be that a role model is a more effective influence then a bully.

if, as i personally believe, we are a divinely inspired nation(because of our heritage), then we should grant more faith and confidence to the Lord, who is the ultimate arbitor of justice- and who does infact have some dominion over man. this is my fundemental rule on the marketplace, on human behavior, and on foreign relations. i know athiests and agnostics will disagree on the method, but will generally agree on the outcome. because in the end, freedom of expression, and self determination, ironically are what grease the skids of capitalism.

but specifically.. i notice that liberals are very contemptous about the US relationship with Israel. personally i agree! i think we should keep it 'plutonic.' but why not with everyone(even the EU)? we aid all the Arab nations around Israel, which are fundementally contentious... to what end? we ought not be any more involved with anyone outside what commerce and trade permit us. in that same vein.. why is our Federal Reserve bailing out Greece? why are are we still protecting Germany? why should we have any role in Afghanistan? republicans have taken a lot of flack.. but liberals created this notion of making the world 'safe for democracy'. they would have put is in Darphur if given the chance...

if you have 2 friends, who are fighting with eachother, what happens when you pick sides? you lose a friend. but if you remain neutral, you become a more effective mediator, able to maintain civil relations with both sides.

personally i think thats the foreign/economic policy we should strive for- if you want to live in a truly free society, you have to accept SOME RISK of unforseen circumstances(ie terrorism/unforseen personal calamity). whatever your fear is, let it go, embrace the inevitability of unforseen cicumstance. otherwise, stay out of the way!! only then will the two polar extremes, classic (american)liberals and traditional conservatives find a grey area.

and just to finalize my point.. does it appear, anyways, that a healthy majority of Iranians would rather trade computers and cell phones with the west then weapons? we may not even need sactions. if given enough time, the grassroots uprising will overthrow the current leadership. could it be, that if we just stayed out of the way, things may favorably fall into place?? its a risk that apparently current libs and conservatives, in America, are unwilling to take. but this also extends to policy both foreign and domestic! its a strange parallel.. but neither party will accept any room for divine providence. it's no wonder we have a history of authoritarian idealogues run amok- we dont believe in freedom anymore!!! its pure centralized planning from here on out

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sig

( hate to ask , but wth ... )

If we didn't act, do you think nothing would happen? Would the void that filled the space we don't occupy be filled up w/ peaceful, caring, and freedom loving influences ?

Looking at how other nations run things, I'd rather we influence the issue than others.

Taking us out of the equation doesn't always ensure the shiny happy you're trying to portray.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURAPTOR:
Sig

( hate to ask , but wth ... )

If we didn't act, do you think nothing would happen? Would the void that filled the space we don't occupy be filled up w/ peaceful, caring, and freedom loving influences ?

Looking at how other nations run things, I'd rather we influence the issue than others.

Taking us out of the equation doesn't always ensure the shiny happy you're trying to portray.

---

So don't bitch when the issue turns around to exert its influence on you

what goes around, comes around

you might have heard the cliche

birds coming home to roost and all that

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
heres my opinion: only in self defense, in response to an act of aggression, does any nation have the 'right' to go to war. its a principle libertain view to never exert aggression but in direct self-defense. i believe it was the policy for AMerica all along to remain neutral, unless attacked directly. no aid, no allies.. complete neutrality. 'commerce with all, entangling alliances with none' was the early motto of the American founders. it was British common law that introduced the founders to these concepts to begin with! the biblical concept would be that a role model is a more effective influence then a bully.

if, as i personally believe, we are a divinely inspired nation(because of our heritage), then we should grant more faith and confidence to the Lord, who is the ultimate arbitor of justice- and who does infact have some dominion over man. this is my fundemental rule on the marketplace, on human behavior, and on foreign relations. i know athiests and agnostics will disagree on the method, but will generally agree on the outcome. because in the end, freedom of expression, and self determination, ironically are what grease the skids of capitalism.

but specifically.. i notice that liberals are very contemptous about the US relationship with Israel. personally i agree! i think we should keep it 'plutonic.' but why not with everyone(even the EU)? we aid all the Arab nations around Israel, which are fundementally contentious... to what end? we ought not be any more involved with anyone outside what commerce and trade permit us. in that same vein.. why is our Federal Reserve bailing out Greece? why are are we still protecting Germany? why should we have any role in Afghanistan? republicans have taken a lot of flack.. but liberals created this notion of making the world 'safe for democracy'. they would have put is in Darphur if given the chance...

if you have 2 friends, who are fighting with eachother, what happens when you pick sides? you lose a friend. but if you remain neutral, you become a more effective mediator, able to maintain civil relations with both sides.

personally i think thats the foreign/economic policy we should strive for- if you want to live in a truly free society, you have to accept SOME RISK of unforseen circumstances(ie terrorism/unforseen personal calamity). whatever your fear is, let it go, embrace the inevitability of unforseen cicumstance. otherwise, stay out of the way!! only then will the two polar extremes, classic (american)liberals and traditional conservatives find a grey area.

and just to finalize my point.. does it appear, anyways, that a healthy majority of Iranians would rather trade computers and cell phones with the west then weapons? we may not even need sactions. if given enough time, the grassroots uprising will overthrow the current leadership. could it be, that if we just stayed out of the way, things may favorably fall into place?? its a risk that apparently current libs and conservatives, in America, are unwilling to take. but this also extends to policy both foreign and domestic! its a strange parallel.. but neither party will accept any room for divine providence. it's no wonder we have a history of authoritarian idealogues run amok- we dont believe in freedom anymore!!! its pure centralized planning from here on out

---

I think you make interesting and valuable points.

Would Iran want nukes ( if they do, and I would ) if they were not being threatened daily, and already had a neighbor attacked on maybes and what ifs ?


Perhaps the best way to exert influence out into the world would be to simply say, hey we would love to trade with you... except for this little thing

free choice on everyones part

I like the idea...

I disagree that it was ever the policy of America, but that is a debate for another time...


How would you suggest the US move towards this idea ?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

DID kill hundreds of thousands of people

---

U.S actions 'killed', or 'led to the death of'? Happily blurring concepts...

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US didn't put that powder keg there, and it didn't light it on purpose - folly and incompetence achieved that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Gosh, that must come as quite a comfort to the families of the dead.

---

Err, well why don't you try comforting the families of Iraqis blown up at marketplaces by telling them they should feel no ill will to Al Qaeda - but instead place all that blame on Bush! Tell them that in effect, George W Bush pressed that trigger.

They would find you perverse and stupid.

Heads should roll

---

Isn't that EXACTLY what we did try to tell them? And what we continue to try to tell people in Afghanistan and Pakistan? "Hey, don't blame US for that drone attack that killed 47 people in a wedding party! We had intel that there was an Al Qaeda busboy at that party!"

And yes, they do indeed find your line of reasoning perverse and stupid. It's why so many of them are now joining Al Qaeda in the fight against the American presence in the area.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURAPTOR:
Sig

( hate to ask , but wth ... )

If we didn't act, do you think nothing would happen? Would the void that filled the space we don't occupy be filled up w/ peaceful, caring, and freedom loving influences ?

Looking at how other nations run things, I'd rather we influence the issue than others.

Taking us out of the equation doesn't always ensure the shiny happy you're trying to portray.

---

That has a familiar ring to it... Something along the lines of

"We're not telling them what to think; we're showing them how."




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Isn't that EXACTLY what we did try to tell them? And what we continue to try to tell people in Afghanistan and Pakistan? "Hey, don't blame US for that drone attack that killed 47 people in a wedding party!

---

Not in your wildest dreams.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Betcha didn't know we've been so busy, huh?

---

Have to agree with rappy again. You give no consideration to lives saved by war, entire countries saved by war even - like South Korea, 50million+ people, 7th biggest economy in the world? The positive outcomes are ignored by you, you just tally up the body count.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"U.S actions 'killed', or 'led to the death of'? Happily blurring concepts..."

DID KILL. Actively and callously, and negligently and callously.

You forget that after the US defeated Iraq it was LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE to maintain peace and order in the country. Any deaths that occured are the US's fault, both in fact and by law.

Got that now ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Isn't that EXACTLY what we did try to tell them? And what we continue to try to tell people in Afghanistan and Pakistan? "Hey, don't blame US for that drone attack that killed 47 people in a wedding party!

---

Not in your wildest dreams.

Heads should roll

---

Nope, NOT in my "wildest dreams"; in our ACTUAL REALITY.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

As I told Gino elsewhere, most people here agree with him about America. But violence is not the answer anywhere.

I agree with most everything said, except for the call to violence, but I also think a lot of good is ignored here out of, who knows, maybe guilt? America's done a lot of bad, but also a lot of good, and I agree that, if we were taken out of the equation, nobody can say how many would have died, been persecuted, raped, etc.

Not excusing America for its faults, just saying we're one nation out of many, and nobody's perfect. Thank you, KPO, for the perspective. Beyond that, I won't get into this; I know this is an anti-authoritarian-figure bunch--maybe it goes back to Firefly, I dunno. But I do know that there are many who disagree--and I don't mean just the "America, great nation" idjits who can see no wrong.

I'm a middle-of-the-roader on this one; I hate what we've done, but I don't see us as the Evil Empire. All empires are evil, we're just one of many and because of technology and it being a global village, our empire has had more reach. Another will no doubt come along, maybe in our lifetime, for people to hate equally.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME