|
Post by phaedron on Apr 6, 2012 23:02:12 GMT -8
This will blow over once the Summer TV Lineup starts. That same pacification mechanism we've both discussed is the exact same reason there won't be a race riot. Also, the Bible always seems to point to impending doom. It's one of the nicer pacification mechanisms built into Christianity.
DN: On the subject of race riots (and conspiracy theories), who exactly ordered the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.?
|
|
|
Post by doornail on Apr 7, 2012 4:44:14 GMT -8
Glad others are waking up, was getting worried there for a bit lol .. It wouldn't take much of an event to grind the economy/infrastructure to a stop tho IMO, a cme, internet hackers or oil shortage just to name a few.
have no idea who ordered that..yet
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 7, 2012 10:56:08 GMT -8
If you think we're the only country who uses extreme interrogation techniques youre living in a fantasy world. No country doesn't do it. Does this make it right? That's up to you. That's for another thread. But does it make it a standard to criticize someone? No. If you do it's called once again hypocrisy.
If the UN has no power why di we fund them? Why do we fund something that from why I've seen is increasingly becoming more anti-US.
Why don't we just use the money we give them and distribute it how WE feel is necessary. Doesn't that make more sense?
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 7, 2012 21:00:13 GMT -8
Considering I mentioned rendition in my post you quoted, of course I realize that other countries use torture.
There are a number of countries I highly doubt use torture (because they aren't often terrorist targets, for one), but since neither of us has evidence to back our assertions, it's an impossible argument.
We haven't been funding them at promised levels for quite some time now. Why do we fund them at all? WW2 comes to mind.
The U.S. has increasingly become anti-world. You're seeing an effect and calling it a cause.
Please remind me what the real reason we attacked Iraq the second time was?
Considering the U.S. pays farmers to not grow crops? Considering we pay banks, automakers, and airlines to destroy our financial system and make crappy products -- but then defend the right of the "free market" to deny people access to healthcare?
No, I don't think the U.S. spends its money any more wisely than the U.N.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 7, 2012 21:13:04 GMT -8
Gotta get this one first. If we both screw up, I'd rather we use ourselves.
Ah, now which is the cause, and which is the effect?
Also, touche. Iraq was something needed to respond to 9/11. Wrong response, but that's why.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 7, 2012 21:46:56 GMT -8
Gotta get this one first. If we both screw up, I'd rather we use ourselves. We are better at screwing up than most... My Interpretation of Cause and Effect in this case: U.S.: "We want to attack country X, help us now." U.N.: "What did country X do to you? War is bad. Give us time to inspect. War is bad and stuff." U.S.: "We don't need you, we can attack whoever we want unilaterally." U.N.: "You guys aren't very nice anymore, and we are saying so, because that's all we can do." U.S.: "You are trying to destroy our national sovereignty!!!" U.N.: "Bitch be crazy n' stuff." That would be a wonderful answer if we hadn't already invaded Afghanistan by then. A response had already been made to 9/11, directly focused on the Taliban government that was known to harbor Al Queda. I don't blame you for not having a more solid answer, the U.S. changed its rationale for invading Iraq so many times during the war, it's hard to cut through the 7-layer bullshit dip.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 8, 2012 16:37:45 GMT -8
[quote author=phaedron board=taboo thread=3236 post=20872 time=1333864016 We are better at screwing up than most... More like, if anyone is going to screw up with our money, I'd rather it be us.My Interpretation of Cause and Effect in this case: U.S.: "We want to attack country X, help us now." U.N.: "What did country X do to you? War is bad. Give us time to inspect. War is bad and stuff." U.S.: "We don't need you, we can attack whoever we want unilaterally." U.N.: "You guys aren't very nice anymore, and we are saying so, because that's all we can do." U.S.: "You are trying to destroy our national sovereignty!!!" U.N.: "Bitch be crazy n' stuff." UN: This country/government are ok, despite their crimes. US: Wait, what? That doesn't make sense? UN: It doesn't have to. So long as they all have a turn. US: /me meanwhile, said country does something, again, bad US: Ok, guys, this needs taken care of. UN: It's not THAT bad. US: *Takes diplomatic course* Work with us for sanctions. UN: Response 1: Uh, maybe? *US spends weeks negotiating to get sanctions* Response 2: No, we shouldn't do that. US: Then we'll do it ourselves. That would be a wonderful answer if we hadn't already invaded Afghanistan by then. Remind me again when the surge came. Seriously, I don't remember. A response had already been made to 9/11, directly focused on the Taliban government that was known to harbor Al Queda. I don't blame you for not having a more solid answer, the U.S. changed its rationale for invading Iraq so many times during the war, it's hard to cut through the 7-layer bullshit dip. Hey, maybe there was a legitimate problem with Iraq. I don't know, you're right. Too much bullshit. The move probably wasn't the greatest.[/quote] Here's my philosophy. I got this from a well respected National Guardsman and a Marine. They said, "The United States has the finest military in the history of the world. We truly can do incredible things, and some horrific things. We can pretty much go anywhere with ease, except for a few nations. But the problem is, we want to be the big savior and make them better. I figure, we're still a cowboy whose got the biggest guns. If there's a problem around the world, we go there, and take care of it. We take care of the problem; take out a regime, assassinate a dictator, etc. Once that's done, we stay for a year or two to stabilize and train a few natives to fight. Then we leave. Just like that. The natives know what they want and how they want it done. They know their issues better than we do. We don't have to stay for decades, they can do it themselves." It makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 8, 2012 17:41:55 GMT -8
That's how we created the problem in Afghanistan in the first place Max. Who do you think armed the mujaheddeen and then left them to fight the Soviets?
That foreign policy has created more dictatorships than it has helped topple.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 8, 2012 18:55:00 GMT -8
If I remember correctly we didn't even put troops on the ground in the Cold War. Look at the philosophy again.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 8, 2012 22:19:50 GMT -8
Well, we put troops on the ground in Korea, which was certainly part of the Cold War, but I understand we were both talking about Afghanistan, where we certainly only supplied aid to foreign soldiers.
If we're only going to express our power in the hardest of senses, direct military engagement, then you can still look at a number of disastrous conflicts that didn't include peacekeeping operations:
- We've put boots on the ground in Panama no less than 3 times in U.S. history: 1903-1914, 1925, 1988. This country still isn't considered safe, or a particularly strong American ally.
- Syria / Lebanon has seen conflict involving U.S. forces no less than 4 times: 1903, 1982, 1983, 2006. Again, not our best friends these days.
- The second War in Iraq certainly still counts in this list. And didn't they pass an parliamentary resolution ordering us out?
And remember that in WW2, we were only dragged in kicking and screaming after Pearl Harbor, long after Europe had fallen to the Nazis.
So how exactly does this military doctrine apply to the U.S. in any positive way?
|
|
|
Post by Ernie on Apr 9, 2012 16:18:14 GMT -8
my late two-cents.
"innocent until proven guilty".
He killed a kid, That's a fact.
He's a grown man and he had to kill a 17 year old kid about my size (I weigh 120lbs, about 6ft) in self defense? Bull %^#$.
More then race, I think it's age discrimination, and I think he should have been arrested, if anything, at least for Manslaughter.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 9, 2012 16:23:45 GMT -8
You must educate me on the Syria/Lebanon issues. And possibly Panama. I'm not as keen on those as I probably should.
And it was to my understanding Roosevelt (FDR) wanted in on Europe long before we actually went it. I'd hardly call that kicking and screaming.
|
|
|
Post by Ernie on Apr 9, 2012 16:36:45 GMT -8
And it was to my understanding Roosevelt (FDR) wanted in on Europe long before we actually went it. I'd hardly call that kicking and screaming. Truth to my knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 10, 2012 13:04:58 GMT -8
FDR is not the country as a whole. Back then, FDR was under the impression he needed congressional approval for a war... you know, as required by the Constitution. So yes, he very much was in contact with Churchill and wanted us to aid the British, but he didn't think he had the authority to get a very xenophobic nation there alone. The U.S. policy back then was mostly one of non-interference in European matters post-WW1. Most of this country needed Pearl Harbor to wake them up... the Japanese couldn't have given the British a bigger gift.
As for Panama, the vast majority of our operations there (save Manuel Noreiga's ousting) were due to our economic interests in the area. Even before we dug the canal, we used Panama as a short land route between ships on either side of the country. Our conflicts there were exclusively with Panamanians who either objected to our direct presence, or objected to the puppet governments we put in place there. We weren't there to make Panama a better place -- we were there to protect our own shipping interests. Of course, Mr. Noreiga was an operative of the CIA for an extended period of time, working directly against the rise of socialist and communist movements in counties like Honduras and Nicaragua in the 1970s and early 80s, until he finally decided to go rogue on his CIA handlers and we went in with stealth bombers, in what was quite possibly one of the most lopsided military engagements of the 20th century.
In the case of Syria and Lebanon, we used the relatively democratic Lebanese government beginning with the gradual the fall of the Ottoman Empire as a bulwark against the expansion of Islamist governments in the region. However, by the 1930's, we were already propping up the increasingly dictatorial (but still secular) regime with a permanent military base and direct military aid. Up until Israel was created by fiat in the late 1940's by British and American decrees (and later accepted to the U.N. on majority vote), we held strong interests there in response to the growth of Shiite Islam in Syria. Then, as Syria began to exert more influence, we continued to maintain a military but not political foothold until the barracks bombing in 1983.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 10, 2012 19:42:41 GMT -8
Please, continue with the Lebanese. Like I said, not as educated.
I don't think we went in kicking or screaming. There were already movements to help the Europeans, whether militarily or eonomicly. I'm sure FDR had a few congressmen in his sleeve that would have agreed with him. You're not elected that many times without influence.
Precisely. This wasn't to fix a problem. It was to create a solution to a much needed way to travel. Without the canal it would be incredibly expensive and dangerous to transport needed materials.
|
|