rr and BS, you guys are on a whole different subject here. You've figured out that no one is supporting the notion that we should still be fighting a bogus war so now you've moved on to making generalized statements about who and what democrats and liberal are all about. Interesting.
This is ridiculous. Halifax brought up conservative policies in liberal cities. I am responding to that point. By no means is that a dodge of the topic at hand.
Speaking of the topic at hand...CNN released a poll today that now shows more Americans blame Obama than Bush for the current state of affairs in Iraq. The withdrawal has been a disaster whether you think the war was bogus or not.
What is ridiculous is your insistence that the Iraq war was somehow justified to begin with, despite evidence to the contrary and that Obama should be blamed for the withdrawal, again despite the facts and that the US should stay in Iraq until, well, who the fuck knows, because we "broke it." Also, that I should somehow "own it" when I was against the invasion of Iraq in the run up to the war and I voted for Obama twice. He ran on not having voted to authorize the war and a second time on bringing the troops home. I eagerly await another video from your prestigious Prager University. Because you wish it to be or repeat it to yourself over and over doesn't make it so. When you dismiss facts to the extent that you do, you're viewed as delusional.
rr and BS, you guys are on a whole different subject here. You've figured out that no one is supporting the notion that we should still be fighting a bogus war so now you've moved on to making generalized statements about who and what democrats and liberal are all about. Interesting.
This is ridiculous. Halifax brought up conservative policies in liberal cities. I am responding to that point. By no means is that a dodge of the topic at hand.
Speaking of the topic at hand...CNN released a poll today that now shows more Americans blame Obama than Bush for the current state of affairs in Iraq. The withdrawal has been a disaster whether you think the war was bogus or not.
What is ridiculous is your insistence that the Iraq war was somehow justified to begin with, despite evidence to the contrary and that Obama should be blamed for the withdrawal, again despite the facts and that the US should stay in Iraq until, well, who the fuck knows, because we "broke it." Also, that I should somehow "own it" when I was against the invasion of Iraq in the run up to the war and I voted for Obama twice. He ran on not having voted to authorize the war and a second time on bringing the troops home. I eagerly await another video from your prestigious Prager University. Because you wish it to be or repeat it to yourself over and over doesn't make it so. When you dismiss facts to the extent that you do, you're viewed as delusional.
You don't own the invasion portion just the post-surge withdrawal that you voted for.
You realize the post surge success is a mirage, right? You realize that the US paid off the Sunni tribes not to fight with billions in US cash, right? You know that, huh? So, was it the US troops or the billions in US dollars? So, the US funded what eventually became ISIS. Frankly, I'm very happy my nation's billions are no longer being wasted down a rabbit hole and that my nation's military members aren't dying for a lost cause. Keep spewing your neocon war mongering and please let me know when Canada devotes more than 1% of GDP to defense. Funny, coming from a neocon in a "welfare" country. Queue the Prager University YouTube link of how great Canada's military is and how they're fighting the evil doers.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,541
BS, you're certainly allowed to have a minority opinion but at this point it's hard not to believe that maintaining support for the war in Iraq is not largely based on stubbornness. Since 2003, the support for that war has steadily dropped. Knowing what we know now, most Americans, even many of those who were fervent flag waving Americans at the time agree that it was a bad idea. It's just like Vietnam. How many people today believe that was a good idea? Almost no one. Not too many years from now, the same will be true for Iraq.
BS, you're certainly allowed to have a minority opinion but at this point it's hard not to believe that maintaining support for the war in Iraq is not largely based on stubbornness. Since 2003, the support for that war has steadily dropped. Knowing what we know now, most Americans, even many of those who were fervent flag waving Americans at the time agree that it was a bad idea. It's just like Vietnam. How many people today believe that was a good idea? Almost no one. Not too many years from now, the same will be true for Iraq.
It is a self-fullfilled bad idea. Only a few short years ago it still had the ability to be a great idea. It could have been a stable country with the potential to foster a real arab spring across the middle east while sending extremism into retreat. This isn't just me saying this...as per the Joe Biden video the Obama administration agreed. With only a little more commitment I truly believe this could have been achieved and if possible how great would that have been?
You may say that I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one.
BS, you're certainly allowed to have a minority opinion but at this point it's hard not to believe that maintaining support for the war in Iraq is not largely based on stubbornness. Since 2003, the support for that war has steadily dropped. Knowing what we know now, most Americans, even many of those who were fervent flag waving Americans at the time agree that it was a bad idea. It's just like Vietnam. How many people today believe that was a good idea? Almost no one. Not too many years from now, the same will be true for Iraq.
It is a self-fullfilled bad idea. Only a few short years ago it still had the ability to be a great idea. It could have been a stable country with the potential to foster a real arab spring across the middle east while sending extremism into retreat. This isn't just me saying this...as per the Joe Biden video the Obama administration agreed. With only a little more commitment I truly believe this could have been achieved and if possible how great would that have been?
You may say that I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one.
Oh, I totally agree that all the middle-east countries could have been great countries and at one time were. But our interference, bombing, the radioactive pollution we left behind, etc. destroyed any chance off a decent relationship with those places and destroyed much of their art, architecture and culture and caused a lot of unnecessary deaths. This is going to look bad on a resume.
The only thing I prefer is results and be it Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Iraq and/or Yemen the post-JFK "liberal" track record is always the same....lack of security, poor business opportunity, reduced education quality, poverty and racial strife.
The democratic party is living in the 60's and on economic policy it is being soundly rejected on the state and local level. There is a reason why the majority of governors and state houses are overwhelmingly republican right now. The only answer liberals have for the problems in society is "more money!". That is essentially the essence of your whole post...if only we invested on A or spent more money on B! Since the war on poverty you have spent and spent and spent with only worsening results. Obama and the democratic congress passed a massive stimulus in his first term with absolutely zero to show for it. The economy has just contracted in the first quarter! At some point you have to open your eyes and recognize that what you are constantly calling for is not working! But no....Just this morning we find Democratic Governor Malloy of Connecticut passing a massive tax increase that has forced major corporation such as GE, Aetnas and Travelers to consider leaving the state. Connecticut has chosen to go the way of Illinois instead of Texas and the lower/middle class people of that state will suffer the most for it. So I repeat...Chicago (or Chiraq as Spike Lee calls it), Baltimore, Cleveland are the product of liberal policies. In about 10 years you'll be able to add Hartford to the list.
Wasn't it a republican who bankrupted California?
That BS selective memory again: "Schwarzenegger is magically not guilty of bankrupting because he's republican like me. Derp!" If admitting that Dubya sucked meant admitting the Earth is round, he'd say it's flat without any trace of irony. Scum like him are the reason why Idiocracy is the most prophetic movie ever.
The only thing I prefer is results and be it Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Iraq and/or Yemen the post-JFK "liberal" track record is always the same....lack of security, poor business opportunity, reduced education quality, poverty and racial strife.
The democratic party is living in the 60's and on economic policy it is being soundly rejected on the state and local level. There is a reason why the majority of governors and state houses are overwhelmingly republican right now. The only answer liberals have for the problems in society is "more money!". That is essentially the essence of your whole post...if only we invested on A or spent more money on B! Since the war on poverty you have spent and spent and spent with only worsening results. Obama and the democratic congress passed a massive stimulus in his first term with absolutely zero to show for it. The economy has just contracted in the first quarter! At some point you have to open your eyes and recognize that what you are constantly calling for is not working! But no....Just this morning we find Democratic Governor Malloy of Connecticut passing a massive tax increase that has forced major corporation such as GE, Aetnas and Travelers to consider leaving the state. Connecticut has chosen to go the way of Illinois instead of Texas and the lower/middle class people of that state will suffer the most for it. So I repeat...Chicago (or Chiraq as Spike Lee calls it), Baltimore, Cleveland are the product of liberal policies. In about 10 years you'll be able to add Hartford to the list.
Wasn't it a republican who bankrupted California?
That BS selective memory again: "Schwarzenegger is magically not guilty of bankrupting because he's republican like me. Derp!" If admitting that Dubya sucked meant admitting the Earth is round, he'd say it's flat without any trace of irony. Scum like him are the reason why Idiocracy is the most prophetic movie ever.
See this is typical of the crap that gets spewed on here that most people find so offensive because it is both obtuse and purposefully distorts:
1) yes republicans participated in bankrupting california including schwarzenneger. We were discussing liberal policies vs conservative policies as they are now defined...not republican vs democrat. There can be conservative leaning democrats (Joe Manchin) and liberal leaning republicans. It is not party but policy that is the problem.
2) "dubya" participated in adding tremendously to the current national debt load. This is how the tea party came to be...it was a response to Bush and large government spending by both parties. I can and do criticize Bush all the time...when I think it is warranted.
Use the word "scum" towards me if you like. I have the thickest skin in the biz so I couldn't care less but please realize you are lightweight debating amongst real minds that have an appreciation for nuance.
Define "a little more commitment." And at the least, " a little more commitment" would have violated Iraq's sovereignty, yes or no?
A little more commitment is a long term presence such as germany or south korea in order to backstop local government forces that need our support.
Would that have violated sovereignty? The invasion violated sovereignty. Restoring it is important but it cannot be the only determining factor when a collapse such as what we are witnessing is the alternative.
Lastly...to clarify...this is all a discussion of the past right now. Since the fall of Ramadi I have not advocated for re-invasion. As I have said I believe the war in this form is now lost and the opportunities that might have been available to the international community over the last year are now gone. The only thing I think we can do now is try to contain Iran/ISIS and backstop our allies such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi etc.
rr and BS, you guys are on a whole different subject here. You've figured out that no one is supporting the notion that we should still be fighting a bogus war so now you've moved on to making generalized statements about who and what democrats and liberal are all about. Interesting.
This is ridiculous. Halifax brought up conservative policies in liberal cities. I am responding to that point. By no means is that a dodge of the topic at hand.
Speaking of the topic at hand...CNN released a poll today that now shows more Americans blame Obama than Bush for the current state of affairs in Iraq. The withdrawal has been a disaster whether you think the war was bogus or not.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
Brian,If we want to help those here at home we are going to need to do it not just with Govt but with the benevolence of the private sector.Not just charities and orginazations but Also wealthy individuals and buisness charities(think Ronald McDonald House,Bill Gates charities,etc). It is crucial that we protect our interests from a financial perspective,in order to continue the work we need to do at home. We can't say Fuck it and let other economies and Markets take big hits and losses hits without feeling it's butterfly effect here.Even the ones some think are evil(oil,resources) must be kept stable to not offset our markets here.
I know it dosent fit into the utopian vision of peace love and help ,but you can't have the utopia and help the helpless without it.As strong as we are as a union we have an obligation to reach beyond our borders to also help.
For example ,Yes we have drought here,but should we not try to also bring clean water to remote areas of Africa?Or should we not respond to Enviormental or Natural issues because we have them also at home.
And yes the big bad military machine is also needed worldwide to keep transport ,rail and air and shipping lanes free and clear of pirates and those who want to stop the free flow of commerce goods and services.Its our job to help police the worlds idiots who want to do no good stuff with Nuclear items not just weapons but waste.
We have good allies all over who maybe couldn't stand up to bigger,stronger regimes.We can't let them be bullied.It will hurt us domestically in the long run. And we cannot just sit by while non state actors continue to try to force there perversions onto innocent people.Letting them take over countries and gain power is not the right thing to do.Regardless of who gave them power to begin with.
Say what? Are you serious?
Of course.Whats your issue?
Interesting that you selected Ronald McDonald House, a charity for families with sick kids enduring long stays in hospitals and the wealthy individual Bill Gates. Why not the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adleson or any number of wealthy conservative donors? The upcoming presidential election is going to cost each side close to one billion. Imagine what that kind of money could do, in say, I don’t know, Baltimore or Liberia? So, US military intervention is to be used to keep the stock market stable, regardless of which stock market it is and where its located?
I guess you’d be in favor of increasing the US contributions to the UN? If not, why? What transport, rail, air and shipping lanes are you referring to? Somalia has pirates. Should we invade Somalia? The Straight of Hormuz, the Straight of Malacca and the Panama and Suez Canals are patrolled and protected by the US but that doesn’t mean we need to invade Malaysia, Iran or Syria or re-invade Iraq. Would you be in favor of returning to a 90% top corporate tax rate? That’s what it was in the 1950s and early 60s when the US was doing good all over the world (subjective). All of these things cost money and you can’t not pay for it. Its one thing to protect the free flow of goods and services and quite another to actively meddle in another country’s internal affairs, invade or intimidate another country for economic reasons, like what the US did for Dole, Chiquita and Good Year. Why is “welfare” good overseas but not at home? And if your reference of “perversions” refers to the Islamic State, why not let the Saudi’s, Iranians, Kuwaitis, et al deal with it? Or Canada, China or the Europeans? Why is it always the US policing the world? 70 years of US meddling in the Middle East and what do we have to show for it?
Where to start? Im not sure how you pulled all that out of my post? I didn't advocate for any invasion.And I'm not sure what your trying to say.I was simply saying that you just can't say fuck it ,we need to focus on the poor here at home and turn a blind eye to world affairs.Its all intertwined.are you really manufacturing an argument here?
No we should not return to higher corporate rates,but I didn't bring up taxation. I didn't bring up the Koch brothers because I thought 2 examples was enough to make my point. I mentioned nothing about meddling in other countries affairs,I'm talking about about helping and supporting. And I have plenty of problems with human rights and personal freedom restrictions in the Middle East.But that's not what we are discussing.Why bring that up when you know damn well I was referencing IS and how they are perverting a peaceful religion. Read it next time!
Funny, I did read it. How much more does the US have to do abroad. If we don't take care of shit closer to home, we'll collapse from within. And the Koch brothers would rather buy an election(s) than help the meek overseas. Why shouldn't the inhabitants of the Middle East deal with their issues? No need to get pissy about it.
I had a shitty day,did not mean to project it toward you.I apologize for that.I need a beer,a shower and a bowl.I will leave word with the barkeep in the lounge for you to put a top shelf beverage of your choice on my tab.
But,
It seems the rhetoric in these threads runs along the same path over and over regardless of issue.Like a big liberal circle jerk.I get that ,and it comes with territory here.
There is room for other schools of thought.Not every answer is that The USA is bad,Republicans are Bad,Corparations are bad,Money is evil,We started every problem in the world.Blah,blah,blah. Sometimes it's ok to explore some of the other angles and opinions to the same issues. Not all of us are partisan and stuck in a myopic view of every issue.Not talking about you personally,but just saying.
Not a liberal thing it's the right thing.
What is?
Not going back To the Middle East with more Christian armies.
Media and govt. and many that will benefit are drilling for fear. All about money. NOT humanitarian motivations.
Sorry it boggles the mind some are yet again falling for this.
rr and BS, you guys are on a whole different subject here. You've figured out that no one is supporting the notion that we should still be fighting a bogus war so now you've moved on to making generalized statements about who and what democrats and liberal are all about. Interesting.
This is ridiculous. Halifax brought up conservative policies in liberal cities. I am responding to that point. By no means is that a dodge of the topic at hand.
Speaking of the topic at hand...CNN released a poll today that now shows more Americans blame Obama than Bush for the current state of affairs in Iraq. The withdrawal has been a disaster whether you think the war was bogus or not.
What is ridiculous is your insistence that the Iraq war was somehow justified to begin with, despite evidence to the contrary and that Obama should be blamed for the withdrawal, again despite the facts and that the US should stay in Iraq until, well, who the fuck knows, because we "broke it." Also, that I should somehow "own it" when I was against the invasion of Iraq in the run up to the war and I voted for Obama twice. He ran on not having voted to authorize the war and a second time on bringing the troops home. I eagerly await another video from your prestigious Prager University. Because you wish it to be or repeat it to yourself over and over doesn't make it so. When you dismiss facts to the extent that you do, you're viewed as delusional.
You don't own the invasion portion just the post-surge withdrawal that you voted for.
It is not a winnable war militarily. How do you not see this ? And the costs are huge. Get it BS? Jeese.
BS, you're certainly allowed to have a minority opinion but at this point it's hard not to believe that maintaining support for the war in Iraq is not largely based on stubbornness. Since 2003, the support for that war has steadily dropped. Knowing what we know now, most Americans, even many of those who were fervent flag waving Americans at the time agree that it was a bad idea. It's just like Vietnam. How many people today believe that was a good idea? Almost no one. Not too many years from now, the same will be true for Iraq.
It is a self-fullfilled bad idea. Only a few short years ago it still had the ability to be a great idea. It could have been a stable country with the potential to foster a real arab spring across the middle east while sending extremism into retreat. This isn't just me saying this...as per the Joe Biden video the Obama administration agreed. With only a little more commitment I truly believe this could have been achieved and if possible how great would that have been?
You may say that I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one.
Wrong wrong wrong.
If the US sacrificed another 2000 lives and Billions more for five more years then left same shit would of happened.
Define "a little more commitment." And at the least, " a little more commitment" would have violated Iraq's sovereignty, yes or no?
A little more commitment is a long term presence such as germany or south korea in order to backstop local government forces that need our support.
Would that have violated sovereignty? The invasion violated sovereignty. Restoring it is important but it cannot be the only determining factor when a collapse such as what we are witnessing is the alternative.
Lastly...to clarify...this is all a discussion of the past right now. Since the fall of Ramadi I have not advocated for re-invasion. As I have said I believe the war in this form is now lost and the opportunities that might have been available to the international community over the last year are now gone. The only thing I think we can do now is try to contain Iran/ISIS and backstop our allies such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi etc.
Really?!?!?! Your comparing WWII to sectarian conflict in Middle East.
I know we've beat this over your head but wish you had kids in the US army. No fucking skin on the game.
Again with "Iran". You mean the "Iran" fighting IS? The "Iran" doing our dirty work? The "Iran" that's fighting the boogeyman that we, the west, has created? Unreal
The only thing I prefer is results and be it Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, Iraq and/or Yemen the post-JFK "liberal" track record is always the same....lack of security, poor business opportunity, reduced education quality, poverty and racial strife.
The democratic party is living in the 60's and on economic policy it is being soundly rejected on the state and local level. There is a reason why the majority of governors and state houses are overwhelmingly republican right now. The only answer liberals have for the problems in society is "more money!". That is essentially the essence of your whole post...if only we invested on A or spent more money on B! Since the war on poverty you have spent and spent and spent with only worsening results. Obama and the democratic congress passed a massive stimulus in his first term with absolutely zero to show for it. The economy has just contracted in the first quarter! At some point you have to open your eyes and recognize that what you are constantly calling for is not working! But no....Just this morning we find Democratic Governor Malloy of Connecticut passing a massive tax increase that has forced major corporation such as GE, Aetnas and Travelers to consider leaving the state. Connecticut has chosen to go the way of Illinois instead of Texas and the lower/middle class people of that state will suffer the most for it. So I repeat...Chicago (or Chiraq as Spike Lee calls it), Baltimore, Cleveland are the product of liberal policies. In about 10 years you'll be able to add Hartford to the list.
Wasn't it a republican who bankrupted California?
That BS selective memory again: "Schwarzenegger is magically not guilty of bankrupting because he's republican like me. Derp!" If admitting that Dubya sucked meant admitting the Earth is round, he'd say it's flat without any trace of irony. Scum like him are the reason why Idiocracy is the most prophetic movie ever.
See this is typical of the crap that gets spewed on here that most people find so offensive because it is both obtuse and purposefully distorts:
1) yes republicans participated in bankrupting california including schwarzenneger. We were discussing liberal policies vs conservative policies as they are now defined...not republican vs democrat. There can be conservative leaning democrats (Joe Manchin) and liberal leaning republicans. It is not party but policy that is the problem.
2) "dubya" participated in adding tremendously to the current national debt load. This is how the tea party came to be...it was a response to Bush and large government spending by both parties. I can and do criticize Bush all the time...when I think it is warranted.
Use the word "scum" towards me if you like. I have the thickest skin in the biz so I couldn't care less but please realize you are lightweight debating amongst real minds that have an appreciation for nuance.
Riddle me this with your "real mind and appreciation for nuance," why aren't the Saudis taking the lead against ISIS? Why the Houthis and not ISIS? The supposed allies that they are?
possibly using tactical (mini) nukes? or maybe just experimenting with new MOP's against one of the poorest countries in the world....sorry, not against....we're helping. right.
(edit: misleading youtube title...not confirmed, but speculation from some, including former IAEA inspectors, indicate that this could have been a mini nuke - neutron bomb)
possibly using tactical (mini) nukes? or maybe just experimenting with new MOP's against one of the poorest countries in the world....sorry, not against....we're helping. right.
(edit: misleading youtube title...not confirmed, but speculation from some, including former IAEA inspectors, indicate that this could have been a mini nuke - neutron bomb)
If that was a nuke the cameraman would probably be dead. So hard to really say anything from that video. Who dropped that bomb? What was it purpose? Is it one bomb on a missile depot that resulted in the massive secondary explosion? Is it two bombs? Complete guess work. Pretty amazing that the cameraman knew to film the site ahead of time though.
rr and BS, you guys are on a whole different subject here. You've figured out that no one is supporting the notion that we should still be fighting a bogus war so now you've moved on to making generalized statements about who and what democrats and liberal are all about. Interesting.
This is ridiculous. Halifax brought up conservative policies in liberal cities. I am responding to that point. By no means is that a dodge of the topic at hand.
Speaking of the topic at hand...CNN released a poll today that now shows more Americans blame Obama than Bush for the current state of affairs in Iraq. The withdrawal has been a disaster whether you think the war was bogus or not.
Not a full fledged, megaton h-bomb....the speculation is that it could have been a neutron bomb...a 'bunker-buster' with a nuclear warhead. No white flash, no effect on electronics or any of that shit....but still a WMD. Where it came from is part of the speculation. If I'm understanding the article linked below properly, it would have come from the US regardless of who dropped it. Some think it could be a new bomb that can be carried by an F16, in which case Israel or SA could have dropped it....or it could be an older (larger) bomb carried by a B2 or B52. Or it could have been a munitions dump exploding. Who knows - there is very little info coming out of Yemen. All I know is that was one massive fucking explosion. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-yemen-americas-plans-to-use-nuclear-weapons-against-the-middle-east/5453065
as for why and how the cameraman knew to film.... There are a lot of other videos of explosions around the mountains next to that city - I'm sure people are filming the area pretty much continuously during the fighting.
rr and BS, you guys are on a whole different subject here. You've figured out that no one is supporting the notion that we should still be fighting a bogus war so now you've moved on to making generalized statements about who and what democrats and liberal are all about. Interesting.
This is ridiculous. Halifax brought up conservative policies in liberal cities. I am responding to that point. By no means is that a dodge of the topic at hand.
Speaking of the topic at hand...CNN released a poll today that now shows more Americans blame Obama than Bush for the current state of affairs in Iraq. The withdrawal has been a disaster whether you think the war was bogus or not.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
the united states presence in the middle east may not be the root problem, but it certainly has not helped things. people forget that osama bin laden told the us prior to 9/11 that our presence in afghanistan is his motivation to attack us. he told us it was coming if we stayed there. and look what happened.
ignorance and arrogance is bad foreign policy.
and to address your final point, the people of the middle east did coexist peacefully for thousands of years. yes, there was some regional conflicts, but it was not in perpetual war like fox news will have you believe.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
the united states presence in the middle east may not be the root problem, but it certainly has not helped things. people forget that osama bin laden told the us prior to 9/11 that our presence in afghanistan is his motivation to attack us. he told us it was coming if we stayed there. and look what happened.
ignorance and arrogance is bad foreign policy.
and to address your final point, the people of the middle east did coexist peacefully for thousands of years. yes, there was some regional conflicts, but it was not in perpetual war like fox news will have you believe.
Wasn't it Saudi Arabia? I always thought that Bin Laden's major issue was that Saudi Arabia was letting the coalition forces assemble there. I didn't realize we were really involved in Afghanistan before 9/11 other than supplying weapons to the Afghan troops during the war against the Soviet union.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
the united states presence in the middle east may not be the root problem, but it certainly has not helped things. people forget that osama bin laden told the us prior to 9/11 that our presence in afghanistan is his motivation to attack us. he told us it was coming if we stayed there. and look what happened.
ignorance and arrogance is bad foreign policy.
and to address your final point, the people of the middle east did coexist peacefully for thousands of years. yes, there was some regional conflicts, but it was not in perpetual war like fox news will have you believe.
Wasn't it Saudi Arabia? I always thought that Bin Laden's major issue was that Saudi Arabia was letting the coalition forces assemble there. I didn't realize we were really involved in Afghanistan before 9/11 other than supplying weapons to the Afghan troops during the war against the Soviet union.
you are right my bad. it was saudi arabia. i am so used to typing iran, iraq, afghanistan, that i forgot about the saudis. i think i was thinking afghanistan because bin laden fought the soviets in afghanistan. long week...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
You may say that I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1) yes republicans participated in bankrupting california including schwarzenneger. We were discussing liberal policies vs conservative policies as they are now defined...not republican vs democrat. There can be conservative leaning democrats (Joe Manchin) and liberal leaning republicans. It is not party but policy that is the problem.
2) "dubya" participated in adding tremendously to the current national debt load. This is how the tea party came to be...it was a response to Bush and large government spending by both parties. I can and do criticize Bush all the time...when I think it is warranted.
Use the word "scum" towards me if you like. I have the thickest skin in the biz so I couldn't care less but please realize you are lightweight debating amongst real minds that have an appreciation for nuance.
Would that have violated sovereignty? The invasion violated sovereignty. Restoring it is important but it cannot be the only determining factor when a collapse such as what we are witnessing is the alternative.
Lastly...to clarify...this is all a discussion of the past right now. Since the fall of Ramadi I have not advocated for re-invasion. As I have said I believe the war in this form is now lost and the opportunities that might have been available to the international community over the last year are now gone. The only thing I think we can do now is try to contain Iran/ISIS and backstop our allies such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi etc.
Media and govt. and many that will benefit are drilling for fear. All about money. NOT humanitarian motivations.
Sorry it boggles the mind some are yet again falling for this.
If the US sacrificed another 2000 lives and Billions more for five more years then left same shit would of happened.
Aye yay yay.
I know we've beat this over your head but wish you had kids in the US army. No fucking skin on the game.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
possibly using tactical (mini) nukes? or maybe just experimenting with new MOP's against one of the poorest countries in the world....sorry, not against....we're helping. right.
(edit: misleading youtube title...not confirmed, but speculation from some, including former IAEA inspectors, indicate that this could have been a mini nuke - neutron bomb)
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clintons-state-department-increased-chemical-arms-sales-middle-east-countries-1949653
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-george-w-bush-popularity-obama-popularity-118576.html?hp=l3_4
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-yemen-americas-plans-to-use-nuclear-weapons-against-the-middle-east/5453065
Dubya's an idiot. Can't talk.
Just says a lot about Americans.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/qr9n5u/america-in-the-middle-east---learning-curves-are-for-pussies
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
ignorance and arrogance is bad foreign policy.
and to address your final point, the people of the middle east did coexist peacefully for thousands of years. yes, there was some regional conflicts, but it was not in perpetual war like fox news will have you believe.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
on point video and very accurate in its estimation
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/watch-the-1994-video-dick-cheney-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14