The fact remains that every single United States president since WWI with the exception of Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson subscribes to the theory of Realism. They believe that other governments that hate us are dangerous and that the world is a ruthless scene to rule a state. In Obama's mind if we leave Afghanistan then we leave and give way to a government who hates us, treats its people poorly, and may either attack us or support terrorists who will attack us. Also if America leaves Iraq we will be throwing off the most important principle in the eyes of a Realist, Balance of Power Politics. With U.S. withdrawal the Middle East balance of power could shift in a way that is very unfavorable to the United States if nations like Iran and Afghanistan got their ways. This would lead to security problems for Israel and most importantly cause the greatest economic problem that the United States could face, shortage or expensive oil. If oil was not made available to the United States, or was made available at very high costs the U.S. economy would collapse, the whole system would collapse because oil is what makes the system go. Now say what you will that the Bush fought this war for oil, but lets keep in mind that Obama is too, they both subscribe to Realism and that is concerned with the balance of power that keeps the U.S. on top, and in the end oil is what is king for our economy. So that is one line of thinking, and one that i am more than confident goes through Obama's mind, of why not to just end the war.
*Edited to fix a spelling error or two*
The middle east and afghanistan pose no threat to the US or Israel, that's ridiculous. its a pretext, to hide their agendas.
they have resources.....iraq with its oil and afganistan with its its heroine, and they can cut an oil pipeline thru kandahar that will cut the iranians out of the european market. its going to destroy their economy.
these are strategic aquisitions in the game of empire.
The fact remains that every single United States president since WWI with the exception of Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson subscribes to the theory of Realism. They believe that other governments that hate us are dangerous and that the world is a ruthless scene to rule a state. In Obama's mind if we leave Afghanistan then we leave and give way to a government who hates us, treats its people poorly, and may either attack us or support terrorists who will attack us. Also if America leaves Iraq we will be throwing off the most important principle in the eyes of a Realist, Balance of Power Politics. With U.S. withdrawal the Middle East balance of power could shift in a way that is very unfavorable to the United States if nations like Iran and Afghanistan got their ways. This would lead to security problems for Israel and most importantly cause the greatest economic problem that the United States could face, shortage or expensive oil. If oil was not made available to the United States, or was made available at very high costs the U.S. economy would collapse, the whole system would collapse because oil is what makes the system go. Now say what you will that the Bush fought this war for oil, but lets keep in mind that Obama is too, they both subscribe to Realism and that is concerned with the balance of power that keeps the U.S. on top, and in the end oil is what is king for our economy. So that is one line of thinking, and one that i am more than confident goes through Obama's mind, of why not to just end the war.
The fact remains that every single United States president since WWI with the exception of Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson subscribes to the theory of Realism.
I'm going to stop your post here because you have no true grasp of what the theory of Realism actually is, and I base my assessment on the rest of your post which I have edited out.
Also, here is an article written by Professor John Mearsheimer who teaches at my school. He is the leading scholar on the theory of Realism, yet he writes that the US "should accept defeat and immediately withdraw from Afghanistan." Interesting how the leading scholar on Realism, by your logic, does not "subscribe to the theory of Realism."
America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.
I could not disagree more. They have a moral obligation to leave. It's insane. Really. Insane. Study after study after study shows that BEING THERE is either A) The Problem or Increasing the problems. On top of that, these hostiles have TOLD US WHY THEY ARE HOSTILE! BECAUSE WE ARE THERE! Imagine that! It's that simple. Get the fuck out. Now. Today.
Obama won't get out because he is first and foremost a greedy, self-righteous, money-grubbing crook and sorry excuse of a human. Just like Bush, just like anyone else the idiotic American people elect. The standards of becoming a U.S. politician have become absolutely ridiculous. No morals, no character, no integrity, no human decency.
I've come to believe that you should have to pass a test to be able to vote. Maybe you have to get past the first question or two on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader. Idiots vote in idiots and crooks. Just because you are 18 shouldn't give you the privilege of making such serious decisions. Some sort of logic and/or IQ test and/or common sense test should have to be passed in order to vote.
America and Britain caused all the shit that is happening now so they got to stay and sort it out. Im against aggression in all forms but they have a moral obligation to stay.
I could not disagree more. They have a moral obligation to leave. It's insane. Really. Insane. Study after study after study shows that BEING THERE is either A) The Problem or Increasing the problems. On top of that, these hostiles have TOLD US WHY THEY ARE HOSTILE! BECAUSE WE ARE THERE! Imagine that! It's that simple. Get the fuck out. Now. Today.
Obama won't get out because he is first and foremost a greedy, self-righteous, money-grubbing crook and sorry excuse of a human. Just like Bush, just like anyone else the idiotic American people elect. The standards of becoming a U.S. politician have become absolutely ridiculous. No morals, no character, no integrity, no human decency.
I've come to believe that you should have to pass a test to be able to vote. Maybe you have to get past the first question or two on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader. Idiots vote in idiots and crooks. Just because you are 18 shouldn't give you the privilege of making such serious decisions. Some sort of logic and/or IQ test and/or common sense test should have to be passed in order to vote.
Seriously!!!! DEMOCRACY means all not just those that intellictual snobs think have high enough IQ's. Real education is the key. Limit the amount of advertising a politician is allowed so that those uneducated don't just vote for the face they have seen on TV. Have true debates that address all the issues not just the preassigned topics that have been pre-approved! I could go on for days... Unfortunately there will always be morons out there who don't understand the implications of voting for the popular or norm, but they do and should have the right to vote just as much as 'those smart college types'!!!!!
Yes, I agree, tink. Obviously my suggestion was extreme. And I think it would be much better if the end result were more educated voters rather than simply less voters. I've just kinda lost hope. Can I use that word still? Or has Obama already tainted it? Either way, he along with most all other politicians have tainted my hope in the Americans. It is beyond pathetic.
So yes, anyone and everyone should be allowed to run for office, regardless of campaign finances. Elections should be publicly funded ONLY. No private donations, no sleeping with killer food or drug companies. That much is obvious. Yet I'm sure there is someone out there with strong conviction that what I'm typing is crazy.
Yes, I agree, tink. Obviously my suggestion was extreme. And I think it would be much better if the end result were more educated voters rather than simply less voters. I've just kinda lost hope. Can I use that word still? Or has Obama already tainted it? Either way, he along with most all other politicians have tainted my hope in the Americans. It is beyond pathetic.
So yes, anyone and everyone should be allowed to run for office, regardless of campaign finances. Elections should be publicly funded ONLY. No private donations, no sleeping with killer food or drug companies. That much is obvious. Yet I'm sure there is someone out there with strong conviction that what I'm typing is crazy.
Yes, I agree, tink. Obviously my suggestion was extreme. And I think it would be much better if the end result were more educated voters rather than simply less voters. I've just kinda lost hope. Can I use that word still? Or has Obama already tainted it? Either way, he along with most all other politicians have tainted my hope in the Americans. It is beyond pathetic.
So yes, anyone and everyone should be allowed to run for office, regardless of campaign finances. Elections should be publicly funded ONLY. No private donations, no sleeping with killer food or drug companies. That much is obvious. Yet I'm sure there is someone out there with strong conviction that what I'm typing is crazy.
Thats more like it
not just less advertising and money in general being involved but there should be open and honest debates, especially in the presidential cycle. as it is now it's controlled by former chairs of the 2 parties and other partisan hacks, the debates are pretty much infomercials where the 2 parties and corporations influence and decide what is asked, who is allowed to participate, there's no real debate going on
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
And the answer? Because Obama is crooked as hell. Just like probably 99% of politicians.
exactly true
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
And the answer? Because Obama is crooked as hell. Just like probably 99% of politicians.
exactly true
People are so easily swayed by charm. "Change" and "Hope" are all he needed to be elected. Not even actual change or actual hope. Just two fuckin words. Ten fuckin letters. Most humans are absolute fools. It really leads me to wonder if we are in fact out of place at the top of the food chain. I guess we'll see. The human race has made its mark on the planet and hopefully we can come out of this thing alive.
And the answer? Because Obama is crooked as hell. Just like probably 99% of politicians.
exactly true
People are so easily swayed by charm. "Change" and "Hope" are all he needed to be elected. Not even actual change or actual hope. Just two fuckin words. Ten fuckin letters. Most humans are absolute fools. It really leads me to wonder if we are in fact out of place at the top of the food chain. I guess we'll see. The human race has made its mark on the planet and hopefully we can come out of this thing alive.
From the disgusting way humans treat the planet and each other I don't think will be at the top of said chain for much longer. :(
I could not disagree more. They have a moral obligation to leave. It's insane. Really. Insane. Study after study after study shows that BEING THERE is either A) The Problem or Increasing the problems. On top of that, these hostiles have TOLD US WHY THEY ARE HOSTILE! BECAUSE WE ARE THERE! Imagine that! It's that simple. Get the fuck out. Now. Today.
Obama won't get out because he is first and foremost a greedy, self-righteous, money-grubbing crook and sorry excuse of a human. Just like Bush, just like anyone else the idiotic American people elect. The standards of becoming a U.S. politician have become absolutely ridiculous. No morals, no character, no integrity, no human decency.
I've come to believe that you should have to pass a test to be able to vote. Maybe you have to get past the first question or two on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader. Idiots vote in idiots and crooks. Just because you are 18 shouldn't give you the privilege of making such serious decisions. Some sort of logic and/or IQ test and/or common sense test should have to be passed in order to vote.
Seriously!!!! DEMOCRACY means all not just those that intellictual snobs think have high enough IQ's. Real education is the key. Limit the amount of advertising a politician is allowed so that those uneducated don't just vote for the face they have seen on TV. Have true debates that address all the issues not just the preassigned topics that have been pre-approved! I could go on for days... Unfortunately there will always be morons out there who don't understand the implications of voting for the popular or norm, but they do and should have the right to vote just as much as 'those smart college types'!!!!!
no they don't. look at california. that is what you get with true direct democracy... a bunch of selfish, short-sighted morons voting yes on everything and bankrupting their own government becos they don't have the mental capacity to think beyond the boner the new iphone gives them.
i think there should be a test at every polling place... do you know the current president, VP, speaker of the house, and chief justice? if you don't know these 4 big names from all branches of our government, you're not paying enough attention to be allowed to vote.
no they don't. look at california. that is what you get with true direct democracy... a bunch of selfish, short-sighted morons voting yes on everything and bankrupting their own government becos they don't have the mental capacity to think beyond the boner the new iphone gives them.
i think there should be a test at every polling place... do you know the current president, VP, speaker of the house, and chief justice? if you don't know these 4 big names from all branches of our government, you're not paying enough attention to be allowed to vote.
All I can say is thank fuck I don't live in the USA!
The fact remains that every single United States president since WWI with the exception of Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson subscribes to the theory of Realism.
I'm going to stop your post here because you have no true grasp of what the theory of Realism actually is, and I base my assessment on the rest of your post which I have edited out.
Also, here is an article written by Professor John Mearsheimer who teaches at my school. He is the leading scholar on the theory of Realism, yet he writes that the US "should accept defeat and immediately withdraw from Afghanistan." Interesting how the leading scholar on Realism, by your logic, does not "subscribe to the theory of Realism."
First off I think the only statement that you quoted from my first post is correct, and I would be intrigued to know why you think that it is incorrect. Now John Mearsheimer is a leading Realist scholar and the article was an interesting read but I do not think that the article claims that the from a Realist view that the United States should leave Iraq. I look at the article as more of an individual opinion, and while Mearsheimer's opinion is a very scholarly and respected one and it makes good points, I just don't see it as the perspective of all Realists.
Also you claim that I have "no true grasp of what the theory of Realism actually is", which is just not true. Realism has been the dominant view after WW2 and is a pessimistic view of politics and human nature. It is suspicious of idealism and responds to how leaders and nations do behave and the evil elements of human nature. Realism believe the international system is in a state of anarchy and that the state is the primary and only prominent actor. States are rational and act in their own best interest, which is primarily concerned with national security. Realism also is concerned with balance of power to regulate states' ability to achieve their self interest. And finally realism argues that private moral standards are not applicable to the actions of nations.
Also while Mearsheimer's opinion is very highly regarded and respected, it might be best to keep in mind that his view of Realism is slightly different than the standard as it relies more on security than human nature. That being said his argument is based on the fact that al Qaeda will not gain more of an operating advantage if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan because it already is established in Pakistan, it does not really take into account the Realist view of human nature.
One last thing, in 2002 Mearsheimer actually wrote against the war in Iraq because he thought the U.S. should be fighting more against al Qaeda, so obviously his view has changed and therefore may not represent a shift in all Realist thinkers, once again just his personal opinion. http://johnmearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/P0012.pdf
"Change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks"
Why doesn't Congress just stop the funding both wars.
We could bring everybody home tomorrow!!!
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Why doesn't Congress just stop the funding both wars.
We could bring everybody home tomorrow!!!
because our political system is a scam
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Why doesn't Congress just stop the funding both wars.
We could bring everybody home tomorrow!!!
because our political system is a scam
Bingo.
It's nice to see some honest answers on here rather than relentlessly defending such a flawed approach, action, and continued mistakes. Obama=Bush=Gore=99% of all politicians.
Who's different? Nader.
Who would have ended this mess of a war? Nader.
Who would have said, "Fuck you" to the criminal insurance companies and provided a real solution to health care in America? Nader.
Who would NOT have wasted tax dollars to bail out criminal corporations from their greedy and shady decisions? Get this - Nader.
Why doesn't Congress just stop the funding both wars.
We could bring everybody home tomorrow!!!
because our political system is a scam
Bingo.
It's nice to see some honest answers on here rather than relentlessly defending such a flawed approach, action, and continued mistakes. Obama=Bush=Gore=99% of all politicians.
Who's different? Nader.
Who would have ended this mess of a war? Nader.
Who would have said, "Fuck you" to the criminal insurance companies and provided a real solution to health care in America? Nader.
Who would NOT have wasted tax dollars to bail out criminal corporations from their greedy and shady decisions? Get this - Nader.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
The fact remains that every single United States president since WWI with the exception of Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson subscribes to the theory of Realism.
I'm going to stop your post here because you have no true grasp of what the theory of Realism actually is, and I base my assessment on the rest of your post which I have edited out.
Also, here is an article written by Professor John Mearsheimer who teaches at my school. He is the leading scholar on the theory of Realism, yet he writes that the US "should accept defeat and immediately withdraw from Afghanistan." Interesting how the leading scholar on Realism, by your logic, does not "subscribe to the theory of Realism."
First off I think the only statement that you quoted from my first post is correct, and I would be intrigued to know why you think that it is incorrect.
I don't think your statement is incorrect. I think it is certainly debatable, but not the point right now. The point is the sentences AFTER that statement which I deleted because I think those were incorrect; that is, your application of the term "realism" to current US policy.
Now John Mearsheimer is a leading Realist scholar and the article was an interesting read but I do not think that the article claims that the from a Realist view that the United States should leave Iraq. I look at the article as more of an individual opinion, and while Mearsheimer's opinion is a very scholarly and respected one and it makes good points, I just don't see it as the perspective of all Realists.
well, of course it is not the perspective of ALL realists.
Realism has been the dominant view after WW2 and is a pessimistic view of politics and human nature. It is suspicious of idealism and responds to how leaders and nations do behave and the evil elements of human nature. Realism believe the international system is in a state of anarchy and that the state is the primary and only prominent actor. States are rational and act in their own best interest, which is primarily concerned with national security. Realism also is concerned with balance of power to regulate states' ability to achieve their self interest. And finally realism argues that private moral standards are not applicable to the actions of nations.
Also while Mearsheimer's opinion is very highly regarded and respected, it might be best to keep in mind that his view of Realism is slightly different than the standard as it relies more on security than human nature. That being said his argument is based on the fact that al Qaeda will not gain more of an operating advantage if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan because it already is established in Pakistan, it does not really take into account the Realist view of human nature.
human nature? I'm not I understand where this even comes into play. His article is actually very simple. He agrees that it is not in the best interest of the US to pursue their occupation of Afghanistan and they should withdraw. Why is that so hard to grasp?
One last thing, in 2002 Mearsheimer actually wrote against the war in Iraq because he thought the U.S. should be fighting more against al Qaeda, so obviously his view has changed and therefore may not represent a shift in all Realist thinkers, once again just his personal opinion. http://johnmearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/P0012.pdf
you seem to think his personal opinion diverges from that of a realist's opinion, but I don't see how that makes any sense seeing as how his personal opinion is based upon the notion of Realism. Anyway, yes, many people thought that Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan, and that we should have focused our resources on Afghanistan. Seven years later however, it is not hard to see that due to many circumstances, our stay in Afghanistan is not benefitting our interests at the moment. Perhaps if we had continued the war in Afghanistan in 2002 rather than shift our focus to Iraq, people like Mearsheimer would have been in support of seeing it to the end. But clearly Iraq has played a large role in hurting our interests in Afghanistan.
I still don't see what your point is. Realism says a state should act based on its interests, but it is not in the United States' interest to continue its occupation of Afghanistan. Therefore, the occupation of Afghanistan clearly goes against any notion of realism, idealism, or any logical ideology, so.... what's your argument again?
Who agrees with Clinton/Obama that 9/11 was not an act of war? And those types of attacks should be treated as a criminal act.
I'd agree with that. But then investigate and prosecute EVERYONE involved. Including those in and around the U.S. government who may have been involved.
I always wondered why LBJ didn't just end the war instead of quitting.
The President can. He can simply end the war if he wants to.
I found my place......and it's alright
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
The war in Afghanistan won't end soon because we have to again be in control of O I L. Sounds familiar, again it has been and will continue to be an occupation to control the flow of oil. It's matters none who is President, it's our policy to continue this occupation with more permanent military bases and the Taliban is just a ploy similiar to the ploy of WMD. That sounds familiar doesn't it, check out the video below.
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Comments
The middle east and afghanistan pose no threat to the US or Israel, that's ridiculous. its a pretext, to hide their agendas.
they have resources.....iraq with its oil and afganistan with its its heroine, and they can cut an oil pipeline thru kandahar that will cut the iranians out of the european market. its going to destroy their economy.
these are strategic aquisitions in the game of empire.
Good post
Also, here is an article written by Professor John Mearsheimer who teaches at my school. He is the leading scholar on the theory of Realism, yet he writes that the US "should accept defeat and immediately withdraw from Afghanistan." Interesting how the leading scholar on Realism, by your logic, does not "subscribe to the theory of Realism."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/node/68820?page=full
Obama won't get out because he is first and foremost a greedy, self-righteous, money-grubbing crook and sorry excuse of a human. Just like Bush, just like anyone else the idiotic American people elect. The standards of becoming a U.S. politician have become absolutely ridiculous. No morals, no character, no integrity, no human decency.
I've come to believe that you should have to pass a test to be able to vote. Maybe you have to get past the first question or two on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader. Idiots vote in idiots and crooks. Just because you are 18 shouldn't give you the privilege of making such serious decisions. Some sort of logic and/or IQ test and/or common sense test should have to be passed in order to vote.
Seriously!!!! DEMOCRACY means all not just those that intellictual snobs think have high enough IQ's. Real education is the key. Limit the amount of advertising a politician is allowed so that those uneducated don't just vote for the face they have seen on TV. Have true debates that address all the issues not just the preassigned topics that have been pre-approved! I could go on for days... Unfortunately there will always be morons out there who don't understand the implications of voting for the popular or norm, but they do and should have the right to vote just as much as 'those smart college types'!!!!!
So yes, anyone and everyone should be allowed to run for office, regardless of campaign finances. Elections should be publicly funded ONLY. No private donations, no sleeping with killer food or drug companies. That much is obvious. Yet I'm sure there is someone out there with strong conviction that what I'm typing is crazy.
Thats more like it
not just less advertising and money in general being involved but there should be open and honest debates, especially in the presidential cycle. as it is now it's controlled by former chairs of the 2 parties and other partisan hacks, the debates are pretty much infomercials where the 2 parties and corporations influence and decide what is asked, who is allowed to participate, there's no real debate going on
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
And the answer? Because Obama is crooked as hell. Just like probably 99% of politicians.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
From the disgusting way humans treat the planet and each other I don't think will be at the top of said chain for much longer. :(
no they don't. look at california. that is what you get with true direct democracy... a bunch of selfish, short-sighted morons voting yes on everything and bankrupting their own government becos they don't have the mental capacity to think beyond the boner the new iphone gives them.
i think there should be a test at every polling place... do you know the current president, VP, speaker of the house, and chief justice? if you don't know these 4 big names from all branches of our government, you're not paying enough attention to be allowed to vote.
All I can say is thank fuck I don't live in the USA!
First off I think the only statement that you quoted from my first post is correct, and I would be intrigued to know why you think that it is incorrect. Now John Mearsheimer is a leading Realist scholar and the article was an interesting read but I do not think that the article claims that the from a Realist view that the United States should leave Iraq. I look at the article as more of an individual opinion, and while Mearsheimer's opinion is a very scholarly and respected one and it makes good points, I just don't see it as the perspective of all Realists.
Also you claim that I have "no true grasp of what the theory of Realism actually is", which is just not true. Realism has been the dominant view after WW2 and is a pessimistic view of politics and human nature. It is suspicious of idealism and responds to how leaders and nations do behave and the evil elements of human nature. Realism believe the international system is in a state of anarchy and that the state is the primary and only prominent actor. States are rational and act in their own best interest, which is primarily concerned with national security. Realism also is concerned with balance of power to regulate states' ability to achieve their self interest. And finally realism argues that private moral standards are not applicable to the actions of nations.
Also while Mearsheimer's opinion is very highly regarded and respected, it might be best to keep in mind that his view of Realism is slightly different than the standard as it relies more on security than human nature. That being said his argument is based on the fact that al Qaeda will not gain more of an operating advantage if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan because it already is established in Pakistan, it does not really take into account the Realist view of human nature.
One last thing, in 2002 Mearsheimer actually wrote against the war in Iraq because he thought the U.S. should be fighting more against al Qaeda, so obviously his view has changed and therefore may not represent a shift in all Realist thinkers, once again just his personal opinion. http://johnmearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/P0012.pdf
We could bring everybody home tomorrow!!!
because our political system is a scam
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
It's nice to see some honest answers on here rather than relentlessly defending such a flawed approach, action, and continued mistakes. Obama=Bush=Gore=99% of all politicians.
Who's different? Nader.
Who would have ended this mess of a war? Nader.
Who would have said, "Fuck you" to the criminal insurance companies and provided a real solution to health care in America? Nader.
Who would NOT have wasted tax dollars to bail out criminal corporations from their greedy and shady decisions? Get this - Nader.
and Kucinich
this war could've been over a while ago
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=117642
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I still don't see what your point is. Realism says a state should act based on its interests, but it is not in the United States' interest to continue its occupation of Afghanistan. Therefore, the occupation of Afghanistan clearly goes against any notion of realism, idealism, or any logical ideology, so.... what's your argument again?
Cause he doesnt want to end up like JFK
I always wondered why LBJ didn't just end the war instead of quitting.
The President can. He can simply end the war if he wants to.
The Oil Factor-Why Are We In Afghanistan O-I-L
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)