Thank God John McCain isn't President

[Cigar]

http://images.politico.com/global/news/110414_john_mccain_ap_328.jpg

We would be in some real deep shit now ... because his only response is military might ... first, second and last.

[Captain Obvious]

http://94.73.138.210:8099/flipper/images/imge-komik-domuzlar-ciftlesirken-seyredip-gulen-insanlar.jpg

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't that like saying "Good thing JFK was shot otherwise the White House would be called the Whore House".

What politicians claim they would do in office and what they actually do in office are often as different as night and day.

[Cigar]

Isn't that like saying "Good thing JFK was shot otherwise the White House would be called the Whore House".

What politicians claim they would do in office and what they actually do in office are often as different as night and day.

Yea ... No Shit Sherlock :laugh:

I'm still waiting for $6.00 per/gallon Gas and Obama to take your Guns

[Captain Obvious]

I keep seeing $6 gas - who said anything about that?

[Max Rockatansky]

Yea ... No Shit Sherlock :laugh:

I'm still waiting for $6.00 per/gallon Gas and Obama to take your Guns

I keep waiting for my medical premiums to go down. Obama is still working on the gun issue. He has 3 more years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

[Seriy]

Who needs this disgusting war mongering toad.

[Max Rockatansky]

Who needs this disgusting war mongering toad.

The fucking Russians would have shit potatoes if he was elected. They have a nice, warm fuzzy feeling with Obama.

[nathanbforrest45]

Now now Max. You know that Obama will draw a line in the sand and dare himself to cross it.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm still waiting for Obama to take your Guns

Hey, those scare stories made a lot of money for the gun manufacturers, who paid a lot of overtime and hired many new workers. That also created jobs in the steel industry and others that provide raw material for guns, increasing Obama's employment numbers. It also made money for the Fright Wingers who got the contract to make up the scare stories.

[Heyduke]

http://images.politico.com/global/news/110414_john_mccain_ap_328.jpg

We would be in some real deep shit now ... because his only response is military might ... first, second and last.

I hate to say it, but I prefer Obama to McCain. I prefer anyone (other than maybe Jeffrey Dahmer) to McCain.

On the other hand...
They say that a young person has to be heartless to become a Republican, and an older person has to be brainless to be a Democrat. Well, when I was in my early 20's, I was filled to the brim of unrefined idealism. I was excited by the prospect of a Clinton presidency (after 12 years of Reagan-Bush). My extremely liberal friend said that it would be better if Bush were re-elected, because a Clinton presidency would passify the left.

If McCain were president, the anti-war demonstrations would have continued. Drone assasinations would be lambasted on MSNBC. The Surveillance Society would be challenged by young people with pitchforks and torches, etc..

[Heyduke]

The fact of the matter is that under Obama, defense spending has actually increased over Bush's war years. The Nobel Peace Prize winner was the perfect man for the job, from a defense contractor standpoint. Would that have been possible with McCain in there? I highly doubt it.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-increased-real-defense-spending-more-10-percent

In this back breaking mental effort to see the first black president succeed, Americans have let a lot of things slide that McCain could not have gotten away with. Can you imagine the media's response to President McCain secretly pilfering the phone records of journalists? Or, using the IRS as a political bludgeon?

[Seriy]

The fucking Russians would have shit potatoes if he was elected. They have a nice, warm fuzzy feeling with Obama.
His hands soaked with innocent blood of Egyptians, Libyans, Ukrainians, Iraqis.

[Seriy]

6344

[Max Rockatansky]

Russians have now murdered a Ukrainian officer protecting his barracks.

[Heyduke]

Russians have now murdered a Ukrainian officer protecting his barracks.

and some warlord in Africa just hacked off 400 people's arms with a machete.

[Max Rockatansky]

and some warlord in Africa just hacked off 400 people's arms with a machete.

So that makes it all okay according to you. I disagree. Both instances are wrong. Saying or implying one death is okay because hundreds of others are dying elsewhere is not a civilized excuse.

[Green Arrow]

The fucking Russians would have shit potatoes if he was elected. They have a nice, warm fuzzy feeling with Obama.

I doubt it. Much more likely that the world would face nuclear holocaust, or some other global tragedy as a result of endless war.

Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but I actually worked for McCain. Dude would have been worse.

[Heyduke]

So that makes it all okay according to you. I disagree. Both instances are wrong. Saying or implying one death is okay because hundreds of others are dying elsewhere is not a civilized excuse.

It does not make it okay.

[Adelaide]

I keep waiting for my medical premiums to go down. Obama is still working on the gun issue. He has 3 more years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

The Brady Campaign gave the Obama administration all "F's" if I remember correctly? Which is a worse rating than several previous presidents like Bush Jr... what exactly is Obama doing that makes you think he's out to get guns?

[Codename Section]

I would take every bit of news coming out of there with a grain of salt. We've always told a skewed tale when we want to involve ourselves somewhere.

We ignored the rebels in Syria and their behavior like eating fucking hearts to focus on stuff that would let us send in troops or drones overhead.

[zelmo1234]

You have to remember how Obama started off his presidency?

He ended the missile defense shield, and he got nothing for it from the Russians.

Of course being a liberal this was to make the Russian government love and respect him, and they could all hold hands and have a coke!

WHAT HAPPENED IS THE RUSSIANS KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH ANOTHER JIMMY CARTER WHO WAS WEAK!

So they started building up there military setting sites on the territories lost when the USSR collapsed!

They know that Obama is not going to do anything!

Had we been moving forward with the missile defense shield that would have been the perfect chip to bargain with, not to mention that Russia would have had to be dealing with the effects of that shield for all these years

While in many aspects McCain would have been worse, Appeasement is what causes wars, not showing strength! History is proof of this.

Under McCain the world would not likely be at a boiling point

[nathanbforrest45]

Talk softly but carry a big stick

Or in the modern lingo

Draw a line in the sand and then try to putt your way out of it.

[Max Rockatansky]

While in many aspects McCain would have been worse, Appeasement is what causes wars, not showing strength! History is proof of this.

Under McCain the world would not likely be at a boiling point

Agreed. People don't fight those who think will fight back or, worse, beat them.

The Roman strategist Flavius Vegetius Renatus knew this in 390AD:

"If you want peace, prepare for war"

Sun Tzu knew it hundreds of years earlier about 500BC:

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

[Max Rockatansky]

The Brady Campaign gave the Obama administration all "F's" if I remember correctly? Which is a worse rating than several previous presidents like Bush Jr... what exactly is Obama doing that makes you think he's out to get guns?

I'm not paranoid enough to think he's going to order storm troopers to every house and confiscate guns, but I do believe that he and other Democrats like Diane Feinstein would do it if they thought they could get away with it.

He made it clear in his State of the Union speech that he would do what he could with or without Congress. He has also learned that high visibility statements and proposals will result in a huge backlash. He has learned that he needs to be more subtle on how to push the Democrat anti-gun agenda.

[patrickt]

According to the religious folks, god gives and god takes away so I guess we can thank god McCain isn't president and curse him for giving us Obama.

[Green Arrow]

You have to remember how Obama started off his presidency?

He ended the missile defense shield, and he got nothing for it from the Russians.

Of course being a liberal this was to make the Russian government love and respect him, and they could all hold hands and have a coke!

WHAT HAPPENED IS THE RUSSIANS KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH ANOTHER JIMMY CARTER WHO WAS WEAK!

So they started building up there military setting sites on the territories lost when the USSR collapsed!

They know that Obama is not going to do anything!

Had we been moving forward with the missile defense shield that would have been the perfect chip to bargain with, not to mention that Russia would have had to be dealing with the effects of that shield for all these years

While in many aspects McCain would have been worse, Appeasement is what causes wars, not showing strength! History is proof of this.

Under McCain the world would not likely be at a boiling point

Because it would be destroyed. Or, at the very least, America would.

[Green Arrow]

Max Rockatansky, zelmo1234, our nation is insolvent and we spend billions more than we take in already. How do you intend to pay for your endless foreign adventurism?

[Gerrard Winstanley]

@Max Rockatansky (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=575), @zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588), our nation is insolvent and we spend billions more than we take in already. How do you intend to pay for your endless foreign adventurism?
I've figured half the "protuct da Krimea" crowd are just progressive Republicans seeking out another excuse to bash Obama. The remainder are the usual suspects who think the U.S. is obligated to drop democracy like napalm. They have no time for such trivialities as consequence.

[Paperback Writer]

I've figured half the "protuct da Krimea" crowd are just progressive Republicans seeking out another excuse to bash Obama. The remainder are the usual suspects who think the U.S. is obligated to drop democracy like napalm. They have no time for such trivialities as consequence.

Quite.

Throw into this mix the plethora of Democrats who wish to salvage the reputation of their president as a strong man, and they are headed for disaster.

[Max Rockatansky]

@Max Rockatansky (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=575), @zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588), our nation is insolvent and we spend billions more than we take in already. How do you intend to pay for your endless foreign adventurism?

False accusation. Where have I said anything about "endless foreign adventurism"?

Besides, shouldn't you be asking Putin this? He's the one who is actually engaged in "endless foreign adventurism" and their economy sucks worse than a Chinese-made vacuum cleaner.

[Paperback Writer]

False accusation. Where have I said anything about "endless foreign adventurism"?

You do seem, from the outside, to promote it. Perhaps, you hadn't realised how you appear to others.

[Green Arrow]

False accusation. Where have I said anything about "endless foreign adventurism"?

Fine. How do you intend to pay for your strongman approach to Russia?


Besides, shouldn't you be asking Putin this? He's the one who is actually engaged in "endless foreign adventurism" and their economy sucks worse than a Chinese-made vacuum cleaner.

Don't give a fuck about Putin. I don't live in Russia, I have no control over it.

[zelmo1234]

@Max Rockatansky (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=575), @zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588), our nation is insolvent and we spend billions more than we take in already. How do you intend to pay for your endless foreign adventurism?

Who said anything about sending troops? Reagan won the cold war without sending troops.

How about selling Military equipment, at a profit to countries that might have to defend themselves against Russian Tanks? How about selling them the missile defense systems! Anti Aircraft systems?

Why does it always have to be about sending troops with you lefties? There are lost of ways to put pressure on Russia,

How about kicking them out of the G-8??

What about an all out assault on oil, and natural gas exploration dropping the price of these around the world? That would be a huge hit to the Russian economy!

I know that sending troops to mass murder people is the liberal way but there are a lot of other ways to put pressure on Russia!

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Who said anything about sending troops? Reagan won the cold war without sending troops.

How about selling Military equipment, at a profit to countries that might have to defend themselves against Russian Tanks? How about selling them the missile defense systems! Anti Aircraft systems?

Why does it always have to be about sending troops with you lefties? There are lost of ways to put pressure on Russia,

How about kicking them out of the G-8??

What about an all out assault on oil, and natural gas exploration dropping the price of these around the world? That would be a huge hit to the Russian economy!

I know that sending troops to mass murder people is the liberal way but there are a lot of other ways to put pressure on Russia!
Reagan didn't win the Cold War.

[Paperback Writer]

Reagan didn't win the Cold War.

Of course he did. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, cured lepers, and rose from the grave.

[zelmo1234]

False accusation. Where have I said anything about "endless foreign adventurism"?

Besides, shouldn't you be asking Putin this? He's the one who is actually engaged in "endless foreign adventurism" and their economy sucks worse than a Chinese-made vacuum cleaner.

There are a few things to remember,

#1 Not Green Arrow, but most leftist would absolutely adore Putin if he had not committed Blasphemy, by bitch slapping Obama every time he gets a chance, Putin is exactly what they long for absolute power and control over the people!

#2 Liberals are the ones that believe the only way to get people to change there mind is to kill them, it is in there history!

[zelmo1234]

Of course he did. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, cured lepers, and rose from the grave.

If he rose from the grave, lets make him President! But remember he had one hell of a partner in Maggie! She was Great!

[zelmo1234]

Reagan didn't win the Cold War.

Really? he gets credit for it! But look on the bright side Obama is starting it all over again!

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Really? he gets credit for it!
From partisan wingnuts, yes. Of course he does.

But look on the bright side Obama is starting it all over again!
What you've been proposing over the last few pages is a practical 101 to starting another Cold War.

[zelmo1234]

From partisan wingnuts, yes. Of course he does.

What you've been proposing over the last few pages is a practical 101 to starting another Cold War.

You have Russia expanding their boarders for the second time in a few short years? The game is afoot!

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Of course he did. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, cured lepers, and rose from the grave.
Like Horus (http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/42035)?

[Green Arrow]

Who said anything about sending troops? Reagan won the cold war without sending troops.

Good question. I, too, am curious to know who said anything about sending troops.


How about selling Military equipment, at a profit to countries that might have to defend themselves against Russian Tanks? How about selling them the missile defense systems! Anti Aircraft systems?

http://www.nndb.com/people/669/000023600/osama-med.jpg


How about kicking them out of the G-8??

You think Putin gives a shit? All the G-8 is, is a big meeting of world leaders where they argue together instead of one-on-one.


What about an all out assault on oil, and natural gas exploration dropping the price of these around the world? That would be a huge hit to the Russian economy!

Not gonna happen.


I know that sending troops to mass murder people is the liberal way but there are a lot of other ways to put pressure on Russia!

Okay. How are you going to pay for it?

[Paperback Writer]

Like Horus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIMFz5ZKDVo)?
Gerrard Winstanley

Don't forget Mithra and Reagan in that vid.

[Paperback Writer]

I'm going to amend myself--Siddhartha, too.

I've often wrapped my mind around the idea that either they were all one single being repeating itself across time, or people just like those stories.

[Paperback Writer]

Actually this is a good thread to start, but we need someone.

Oi, @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)

can you make the girl get on? She's got more dead languages and ancient history than I do.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Actually this is a good thread to start, but we need someone.

Oi, @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)

can you make the girl get on? She's got more dead languages and ancient history than I do.
Wait for her.

[Paperback Writer]

I'm making it.

Call out Alyosha

She reads and writes at least six dead languages. If you want to get to the bottom of ancient mythos, she's your go-to gal.

Yes, this is why I had a thing for her once. Maybe a little still.

[texan]

Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran, bomb iran-annnnnn!

[Gerrard Winstanley]

You have Russia expanding their boarders for the second time in a few short years? The game is afoot!
I didn't realize a crag off Ukraine and half of Ossetia are critical American assets now.

[Green Arrow]

I didn't realize a crag off Ukraine and half of Ossetia are critical American assets now.

It's a NATO power grab and the hypnotic grasp of oil. If Russia was going after Kazakhstan or Tajikistan, Americans would say, "Who?"

[Max Rockatansky]

I didn't realize a crag off Ukraine and half of Ossetia are critical American assets now.

It's not. So the next time mass murders happen in some shithole like Darfur or Rwanda, we should do exactly like we did with the Germans in 1939 - Keep out nose out of other people's business!

Thanks for the advice on isolationism.

[Mister D]

It's not. So the next time mass murders happen in some shithole like Darfur or Rwanda, we should do exactly like we did with the Germans in 1939 - Keep out nose out of other people's business!

Thanks for the advice on isolationism.

Isn't that exactly what we did in Darfur or Rwanda? Also, you do realize we didn't enter WW2 to stop mass murder, right?

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't that exactly what we did in Darfur or Rwanda? Also, you do realize we didn't enter WW2 to stop mass murder, right?

That is what we did in Darfur and Rwanda, but it was the Libs who were bitching we should get involved.

Correct too about WW2. We were dragged into it and lost almost half a million men in less than 4 years of fighting. That's a tremendous price to pay for isolationism, isn't it? Wouldn't it have been better to just unite with the other WWI allies and tell Germany to STFU or we'd crush them immediately, well before they built up a war machine so massive it was already through most of Europe before we became involved?

I'm not a war monger or blood thirsty, but if some asshole is making threats, acting on those threats and credibly shows a willing to kill anyone who gets in their way, I'm in favor of the maxim "The best defense is a good offense" and take him out as soon as possible to save lives on all sides.

[Green Arrow]

Are we still talking about Russia and Ukraine?

[texan]

Just for the record, invading ither countries is a big deal.

Treating the President like a punk is a big deal.

So all you liberals go ahead and rollout the CYA talking points, protect protect protect.

The world is a damn mess and its gotten worse on his watch. For a while I bought the drone bombs as aggressiveness (I even defending him some), but it really wasn't anything but a cover. He is mocked with his lame-ass sanctions yesterday, he isn't Carter but he isn't tough either. He is playing slight of hand (magic reference) and has been called on it, no response. Redline to Syria, threat but not really a threat to Russia, China is now moving, Punked by Russia and Iran. Great job!

[Max Rockatansky]

Are we still talking about Russia and Ukraine?

Yes. The isolationists say it's only between the Russian Bear and whatever former USSR satellite countries they want to reclaim. The civilized world is saying we should have learned our lessons in the multiple wars of the 20th century that isolationism doesn't work. Appeasement doesn't' work. That if we want this world to be better, we need global interaction, not global separatism.

[Green Arrow]

Just for the record, invading ither countries is a big deal.

Treating the President like a punk is a big deal.

So all you liberals go ahead and rollout the CYA talking points, protect protect protect.

The world is a damn mess and its gotten worse on his watch. For a while I bought the drone bombs as aggressiveness (I even defending him some), but it really wasn't anything but a cover. He is mocked with his lame-ass sanctions yesterday, he isn't Carter but he isn't tough either. He is playing slight of hand (magic reference) and has been called on it, no response. Redline to Syria, threat but not really a threat to Russia, China is now moving, Punked by Russia and Iran. Great job!

Look, dude, I get that partisanism and divisiveness are all the rage these days, but just like with Syria, this issue is not a right-left, Republican-Democrat, black-white issue. There are people from all camps on both sides of this issue. So cut out the bullshit and use your own head.

[Green Arrow]

Yes. The isolationists say it's only between the Russian Bear and whatever former USSR satellite countries they want to reclaim. The civilized world is saying we should have learned our lessons in the multiple wars of the 20th century that isolationism doesn't work. Appeasement doesn't' work. That if we want this world to be better, we need global interaction, not global separatism.

See, I'm with you, and then you start talking about isolationism again, and I once again find myself wondering where all these isolationists you are fighting with are. From where I stand, they are starting to look like windmills.

[Max Rockatansky]

See, I'm with you, and then you start talking about isolationism again, and I once again find myself wondering where all these isolationists you are fighting with are. From where I stand, they are starting to look like windmills.

Make all the accusations you like, but when people say that what happens between the USSR Russia and her former slave states is no one's business or make accusations that those declaring Russia's actions in Ukraine wrong and illegal means they favor "foreign adventures" then it should be pretty clear who the isolationists are.



I didn't realize a crag off Ukraine and half of Ossetia are critical American assets now.

@Max Rockatansky (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=575), @zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588), our nation is insolvent and we spend billions more than we take in already. How do you intend to pay for your endless foreign adventurism?

[Green Arrow]

Make all the accusations you like, but when people say that what happens between the USSR Russia and her former slave states is no one's business or make accusations that those declaring Russia's actions in Ukraine wrong and illegal means they favor "foreign adventures" then it should be pretty clear who the isolationists are.

Well, you quoted myself and Gerrard, and we are both non-interventionists. So I don't think it's as clear as you assume.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, you quoted myself and Gerrard, and we are both non-interventionists. So I don't think it's as clear as you assume.

People rarely want their actions to be seen in a negative light. "Non-interventionists" disclaim being isolationists, but if the result are the same, what difference does it make?

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference" -- Spock

[Green Arrow]

People rarely want their actions to be seen in a negative light. "Non-interventionists" disclaim being isolationists, but if the result are the same, what difference does it make?

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference" -- Spock

The results are not the same, so I don't see your point.

Further, your first sentence applies to interventionists like yourself, as well. I make no attempt to so much as pretend that my philosophy is perfect and the solution to all the world's problems. I simply believe it is the best course of action.

[Max Rockatansky]

The results are not the same, so I don't see your point.

Explain the difference please.

[Alyosha]

Explain the difference please.

Isolationists are those who wish to have no contact with the outside world, unless absolutely necessary. That would have been the FSU circa 1950. Non-interventionists believe that free and open trade of consumer goods and art and philosophy will go farther to win friends and influence people than all the bombs in existence.

It was the introduction of goods and desire for things like American jeans, Pepsi, and music which splintered the USSR. You saw it from the outside from the inside the black market desires and alternative systeming was a huge part of the collapse.

[Chris]

Good lord, are we still trying to explain the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism?

[Green Arrow]

Good lord, are we still trying to explain the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism?

At this point, we're just trying to set the record straight for third party viewers. The Ransoms, Max Rockatanskys, and pjohnses are just looking for confirmation of their preconceived notions, not actual changes of views.

[Alyosha]

Good lord, are we still trying to explain the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism?

Shut up, Chris! This isn't fucking Russia, we're not fucking Russians, we like...well...there's like no difference between isolationism and whatever that other fancy term you guys use is.

I mean, don't be a commie, ok?

[Chris]

At this point, we're just trying to set the record straight for third party viewers. The Ransoms, Max Rockatanskys, and pjohnses are just looking for confirmation of their preconceived notions, not actual changes of views.

Not criticising the explanation, and alyosha's was a good one, but the conflation. It's almost willful ignorance.

[Chris]

Shut up, Chris! This isn't fucking Russia, we're not fucking Russians, we like...well...there's like no difference between isolationism and whatever that other fancy term you guys use is.

I mean, don't be a commie, ok?


Yes ma'am. (See above.)

[Green Arrow]

Not criticising the explanation, and alyosha's was a good one, but the conflation. It's almost willful ignorance.

Of course it is. It's always the old men who did their time (or never did and are passed the age to do it) that advocate interventionism. The people that have to put their lives and their families lives at risk tend to be non-interventionist.

[Alyosha]

Of course it is. It's always the old men who did their time (or never did and are passed the age to do it) that advocate interventionism. The people that have to put their lives and their families lives at risk tend to be non-interventionist.

Quit being such a commie weasel Green Arrow, you know you want the Soviets to win.

[Green Arrow]

Quit being such a commie weasel Green Arrow, you know you want the Soviets to win.

You're right...I joined Putin's Young KGB Club yesterday...*hangs head in shame*

[Chris]

Of course it is. It's always the old men who did their time (or never did and are passed the age to do it) that advocate interventionism. The people that have to put their lives and their families lives at risk tend to be non-interventionist.


Perhaps we noninterventionists should conflate interventionism and imperialism. Nah, that would confuse things.

[Chris]

You're right...I joined Putin's Young KGB Club yesterday...*hangs head in shame*

Thought that was you. I was a little behind you in line.

[Green Arrow]

Perhaps we noninterventionists should conflate interventionism and imperialism. Nah, that would confuse things.

That would just be redundant.

[Alyosha]

You're right...I joined Putin's Young KGB Club yesterday...*hangs head in shame*

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/hooded-angry-man-with-american-flag-design-on-face-m-s.jpg

[Green Arrow]

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/hooded-angry-man-with-american-flag-design-on-face-m-s.jpg

FORWARD FOR MOTHER RUSSIA!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/pricej/bearcavalry.jpg

[Max Rockatansky]

Isolationists are those who wish to have no contact with the outside world, unless absolutely necessary. That would have been the FSU circa 1950. Non-interventionists believe that free and open trade of consumer goods and art and philosophy will go farther to win friends and influence people than all the bombs in existence.


Thanks, but I'm not a "non-interventionist" yet readily agree commerce is better than war. It's why the US has the largest economy in the world. It's only when a rouge nation or power seeks to disrupt the free trade of the world that we should intervene. As the wiser heads of the forum realize, the best way to prevent attacks by those powers is to have a credible force in place. The US has been the world's policemen and should stop. Our allies in France, England, Japan, Germany and so forth need to pick up the slack of protecting trade partners and trade routes from pirates and rouges.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[Alyosha]

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


Hey, you're right...it's all a conspiracy. :roflmao:

[Alyosha]

FORWARD FOR MOTHER RUSSIA!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/pricej/bearcavalry.jpg



Oh yeh, I'll match your bears with swagger, Tovarish!

http://www.nashvillescene.com/imager/another-angry-american-who-likes-to-play-dress-up-and-wants-to-bomb-americ/b/original/1484495/ba83/2457845397_c863ae61cb_o.jpg

[Chris]

Thanks, but I'm not a "non-interventionist" yet readily agree commerce is better than war. It's why the US has the largest economy in the world. It's only when a rouge nation or power seeks to disrupt the free trade of the world that we should intervene. As the wiser heads of the forum realize, the best way to prevent attacks by those powers is to have a credible force in place. The US has been the world's policemen and should stop. Our allies in France, England, Japan, Germany and so forth need to pick up the slack of protecting trade partners and trade routes from pirates and rouges.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


The highlighted portion sounds non-interventionist.

[Green Arrow]

Thanks, but I'm not a "non-interventionist" yet readily agree commerce is better than war. It's why the US has the largest economy in the world. It's only when a rouge nation or power seeks to disrupt the free trade of the world that we should intervene. As the wiser heads of the forum realize, the best way to prevent attacks by those powers is to have a credible force in place. The US has been the world's policemen and should stop. Our allies in France, England, Japan, Germany and so forth need to pick up the slack of protecting trade partners and trade routes from pirates and rouges.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

It's "rogues." You can't protect people from rouge. It's just makeup.

[Green Arrow]

Oh yeh, I'll match your bears with swagger, Tovarish!

http://www.nashvillescene.com/imager/another-angry-american-who-likes-to-play-dress-up-and-wants-to-bomb-americ/b/original/1484495/ba83/2457845397_c863ae61cb_o.jpg

Psh, that old white dude ain't swagger. THIS is swagger!

http://global3.memecdn.com/putin-amp-039-s-sexy-and-he-knows-it_o_1369635.jpg

[Max Rockatansky]

The highlighted portion sounds non-interventionist.Yet I favor keeping a Navy and Marines patrolling trade routes and assisting trade partners until they build up their forces.

"The best defense is a good offense" -- ancient maxim

[Max Rockatansky]

It's "rogues." You can't protect people from rouge. It's just makeup.
Thanks for the grammar correction. I'm sure you believe I was talking about makeup.

[Alyosha]

It's "rogues." You can't protect people from rouge. It's just makeup.

I just blew coffee out my mouth.

[Alyosha]

Thanks for the grammar correction. I'm sure you believe I was talking about makeup.

Well...come on...it's hard to tell with you, Max. You're always so confused about things.

[Green Arrow]

I just blew coffee out my mouth.

I'm so glad you're back. I've missed this :tongue:

[Peter1469]

you're right...i joined putin's young kgb club yesterday...*hangs head in shame*

fsb.

[Chris]

Yet I favor keeping a Navy and Marines patrolling trade routes and assisting trade partners until they build up their forces.

"The best defense is a good offense" -- ancient maxim


OK, that's interventionist, to a degree. A noninterventionist, imo, wouldn't advocate that policy, but, unlike an isolationist, would stand his ground, so to speak.

[Peter1469]

Have the US Navy protecting sea lanes and floating near hotspots can keep most problems in check without doing much else. The US gets into trouble when it tries to occupy land.

[Max Rockatansky]

Have the US Navy protecting sea lanes and floating near hotspots can keep most problems in check without doing much else. The US gets into trouble when it tries to occupy land.

Agreed. Iraq being a key example. We should never have been there in the first place. Afghanistan is different, but was mishandled due to the Administration's desire to move the war to Iraq.

[Peter1469]

Agreed. Iraq being a key example. We should never have been there in the first place. Afghanistan is different, but was mishandled due to the Administration's desire to move the war to Iraq.

With both Iraq and Afghanistan, we could have crushed their military, put a strong man in charge and left. Americans wouldn't have noticed. It was the silly occupations that went FUBAR.

[Max Rockatansky]

With both Iraq and Afghanistan, we could have crushed their military, put a strong man in charge and left. Americans wouldn't have noticed. It was the silly occupations that went FUBAR.

With Iraq, there already was a strong man in charge. If we were concerned about WMD's, letting the USAF turn his palaces into target practice (and they certainly need it!) would have been fine with me. No need to take down Saddam much less invade.

As for Afghanistan, and we've debated this before, we didn't want to see a repeat of post-Soviet-Afghan war just as the Marshall Plan was to avoid a repeat of the post-Treaty of Versailles events. The problem was that we left too early and now have spent too long doing a job which, with the momentum of 2003 plus global support, could have had us out of there by 2005-2006

[Peter1469]

With Iraq, there already was a strong man in charge. If we were concerned about WMD's, letting the USAF turn his palaces into target practice (and they certainly need it!) would have been fine with me. No need to take down Saddam much less invade.

As for Afghanistan, and we've debated this before, we didn't want to see a repeat of post-Soviet-Afghan war just as the Marshall Plan was to avoid a repeat of the post-Treaty of Versailles events. The problem was that we left too early and now have spent too long doing a job which, with the momentum of 2003 plus global support, could have had us out of there by 2005-2006

Saddam left the fold. He had to be replaced.

About Afghanistan there was no possibility for nation building. It isn't a nation. It is a collection of warring tribes.

[Max Rockatansky]

Saddam left the fold. He had to be replaced.

About Afghanistan there was no possibility for nation building. It isn't a nation. It is a collection of warring tribes.

I'm sure there was a better way to handle Iraq rather than a total take-down of the government. The refusal to employ managers in utility centers and bureaucracy simply because they were Baathists reminds me of the pressure to kick out all of the "nazis" in similar positions after the fall of Germany. They were power plant and waterworks managers, not goose-stepping Nazis. They simply joined the party because that was a way to keep their job. Same with Baathists in similar positions. The assholes were the ones in top tier government and the top level military.

Single-handed nation building is like a single-nation manned space project to Mars; too expensive and time consuming to do alone. It's an international effort. Everyone would benefit from a stable Afghanistan. The prolonging of the war simply allowed the assholes to move across the border in Pakistan. Now, instead of a stable Afghanistan, we have an unstable Afghanistan and an unstable Pakistan.

[Codename Section]

When you get to the afterlife, ask Alexander the Great about Afghanistan. He had the same problems, Max.

Some places just need to be left alone.

[Max Rockatansky]

When you get to the afterlife, ask Alexander the Great about Afghanistan. He had the same problems, Max.

Some places just need to be left alone.Yet Afghanistan was progressing well for a third world nation until the USSR invaded.

[Codename Section]

Yet Afghanistan was progressing well for a third world nation until the USSR invaded.

Oh yeh? Define "progressing well".

[Green Arrow]

Oh yeh? Define "progressing well".

Women were actually put in positions of leadership and had (more) rights (than before). It was still a shithole, but it wasn't as much a shithole as before the communists took charge. Plus, the atheism of their regime quelled the radical religious nonsense.

[Green Arrow]

I'm sure there was a better way to handle Iraq rather than a total take-down of the government. The refusal to employ managers in utility centers and bureaucracy simply because they were Baathists reminds me of the pressure to kick out all of the "nazis" in similar positions after the fall of Germany. They were power plant and waterworks managers, not goose-stepping Nazis. They simply joined the party because that was a way to keep their job. Same with Baathists in similar positions. The assholes were the ones in top tier government and the top level military.

Single-handed nation building is like a single-nation manned space project to Mars; too expensive and time consuming to do alone. It's an international effort. Everyone would benefit from a stable Afghanistan. The prolonging of the war simply allowed the assholes to move across the border in Pakistan. Now, instead of a stable Afghanistan, we have an unstable Afghanistan and an unstable Pakistan.

The part that you're not getting is that nation-building doesn't work when the culture you're trying to build is completely antithetical to your own.

[Codename Section]

Women were actually put in positions of leadership and had (more) rights (than before). It was still a shithole, but it wasn't as much a shithole as before the communists took charge. Plus, the atheism of their regime quelled the radical religious nonsense.

They've been growing most of the world's heroin for the last 50 years and has always been factional.

[Green Arrow]

They've been growing most of the world's heroin for the last 50 years and has always been factional.

Well, of course. You'll never get rid of sectarianism in a region where sectarianism is the order of the day. The communist Afghanis were just one faction of many, but they temporarily took control of the whole country in the 1978 Saur Revolution. It didn't last long, and turned into yet another full-blown civil war (which is where the Soviets came into play), but it was still there.

[Max Rockatansky]

The part that you're not getting is that nation-building doesn't work when the culture you're trying to build is completely antithetical to your own.

As stated several times in previous threads, I support helping nations rebuild. That was the idea behind the Marshall Plan. Iraq is an example of "nation-building" and it's a failure for several reasons. People can't be given freedom. They can be freed, but that doesn't mean they'll instantly become a democracy. With freedom comes the choice of picking one's own path. What if Iraq or Afghanistan chose a path of theocracy or authoritarianism? Do we go in and take it down again? No. Nations can assist each other in times of war and in rebuilding after war, but the people of the land need to make their own path.

[Green Arrow]

As stated several times in previous threads, I support helping nations rebuild. That was the idea behind the Marshall Plan. Iraq is an example of "nation-building" and it's a failure for several reasons. People can't be given freedom. They can be freed, but that doesn't mean they'll instantly become a democracy. With freedom comes the choice of picking one's own path. What if Iraq or Afghanistan chose a path of theocracy or authoritarianism? Do we go in and take it down again? No. Nations can assist each other in times of war and in rebuilding after war, but the people of the land need to make their own path.

It doesn't work, though. The nation(s) doing the rebuilding try to rebuild the country in their image, and unless it's a region that is already sympathetic to your way of life, that's going to inevitably breed animosity. Thirteen years in Afghanistan and Iraq has netted us nothing. Iraq is still in turmoil and likely to tear itself apart. Once we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban is going to sweep back in and launch another civil war, and we've seen from history the outcome. Taliban wins. All those American lives and all that American treasure wasted.

[Peter1469]

I agree about the rebuilding of the government of Iraq thing.


I'm sure there was a better way to handle Iraq rather than a total take-down of the government. The refusal to employ managers in utility centers and bureaucracy simply because they were Baathists reminds me of the pressure to kick out all of the "nazis" in similar positions after the fall of Germany. They were power plant and waterworks managers, not goose-stepping Nazis. They simply joined the party because that was a way to keep their job. Same with Baathists in similar positions. The assholes were the ones in top tier government and the top level military.

Single-handed nation building is like a single-nation manned space project to Mars; too expensive and time consuming to do alone. It's an international effort. Everyone would benefit from a stable Afghanistan. The prolonging of the war simply allowed the assholes to move across the border in Pakistan. Now, instead of a stable Afghanistan, we have an unstable Afghanistan and an unstable Pakistan.

[Max Rockatansky]

It doesn't work, though. The nation(s) doing the rebuilding try to rebuild the country in their image, and unless it's a region that is already sympathetic to your way of life, that's going to inevitably breed animosity. Thirteen years in Afghanistan and Iraq has netted us nothing. Iraq is still in turmoil and likely to tear itself apart. Once we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban is going to sweep back in and launch another civil war, and we've seen from history the outcome. Taliban wins. All those American lives and all that American treasure wasted.

Iraq is a good example of "what not to do" from crossing the border in Kuwait until we left with over 4400, tens of thousands maimed and wounded and a trillion dollars up in smoke.

Afghanistan isn't a very good one because of the distraction of Iraq and it's still an active war zone....again because of our actions in Iraq.

Do you consider the Marshall Plan and the equivalent plan in Japan to be wrong Green Arrow? Should we not have even bothered?

[Peter1469]

The Marshall Plan worked in Europe, because, well the US is essentially European. It worked in Japan because they were totally defeated. And they are the sort of people who do what they think they need to do.

Iraq was a hard country to pacify, but a lot of people there liked the occupation and made a lot of money off it. Still no reason to do it.

Afghanistan is different. It is not a nation (a state, yes). It is a collection of warring tribes and likely still will be in another 100 years.

I will say it again, the US should stay out of the occupation business (unless Mexico or Canada ever gave us serious problems.)


Iraq is a good example of "what not to do" from crossing the border in Kuwait until we left with over 4400, tens of thousands maimed and wounded and a trillion dollars up in smoke.

Afghanistan isn't a very good one because of the distraction of Iraq and it's still an active war zone....again because of our actions in Iraq.

Do you consider the Marshall Plan and the equivalent plan in Japan to be wrong @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)? Should we not have even bothered?

[Max Rockatansky]

The Marshall Plan worked in Europe, because, well the US is essentially European. It worked in Japan because they were totally defeated. And they are the sort of people who do what they think they need to do.

Iraq was a hard country to pacify, but a lot of people there liked the occupation and made a lot of money off it. Still no reason to do it.

Afghanistan is different. It is not a nation (a state, yes). It is a collection of warring tribes and likely still will be in another 100 years.

I will say it again, the US should stay out of the occupation business (unless Mexico or Canada ever gave us serious problems.)

Agreed on the occupation part. Comparing Europe and the US is easy because the similarities are obvious. Comparing the US and Japan is more difficult because the cultures are so different. Ever see the phrase "inscrutable Japanese"? In that case, it's easier to compare Japan of 1945 to Afghanistan and/or Iraq. As different as Japan's culture is from the US, there is no doubt they had a completely functional government and cooperative citizenry. Iraq was a under a brutal secular dictatorship for almost 50 years. Afghanistan had what little structure they had shattered by the Soviets and the country devolved into war lords. Much like feudal Europe in many ways.

Democracy can't be transplanted. It must be grown. Certain prerequisites have to be in place for it to work. Like trying to put a nice body on a car with no chassis democracy doesn't work without then necessary infrastructure and culture. That's different from saying it will never happen or can't happen. It just means certain things have to be in place for it to happen. We're agreed that it isn't proper for American citizens to fund or even attempt imposing their ideas of culture and government on others. Sharing and trading is another matter.

All that said, Pottery Barn Rules apply.

[Peter1469]

Agreed on the occupation part. Comparing Europe and the US is easy because the similarities are obvious. Comparing the US and Japan is more difficult because the cultures are so different. Ever see the phrase "inscrutable Japanese"? In that case, it's easier to compare Japan of 1945 to Afghanistan and/or Iraq. As different as Japan's culture is from the US, there is no doubt they had a completely functional government and cooperative citizenry. Iraq was a under a brutal secular dictatorship for almost 50 years. Afghanistan had what little structure they had shattered by the Soviets and the country devolved into war lords. Much like feudal Europe in many ways.

Democracy can't be transplanted. It must be grown. Certain prerequisites have to be in place for it to work. Like trying to put a nice body on a car with no chassis democracy doesn't work without then necessary infrastructure and culture. That's different from saying it will never happen or can't happen. It just means certain things have to be in place for it to happen. We're agreed that it isn't proper for American citizens to fund or even attempt imposing their ideas of culture and government on others. Sharing and trading is another matter.

All that said, Pottery Barn Rules apply.

Are you Colin Powell?

100% incorrect. The United States is a sovereign nation. It can destroy every Pottery Barn and have zero obligation to fix them. After 9-11 the US had every right to invade Afghanistan to end it as an al Qaeda training camp and to punish the Taliban for harboring al Qaeda. The occupation was mission shift into an area where there was no victory possible. It was silly and harmful to all concerned.

[Green Arrow]

Do you consider the Marshall Plan and the equivalent plan in Japan to be wrong Green Arrow? Should we not have even bothered?

As Peter said, Europe and Japan are not comparable. We are essentially European, especially in those days when German was the second most-spoken language in the U.S. Our cultures are very similar, we could nation-build in Europe for eternity and be successful. Japan was only successful because honor is a big deal in their culture, and we completely and utterly defeated them in WWII. That kind of defeat ensured their loyalty to us.

The Middle East, and Afghanistan in particular, is not like that. Afghanistan has been ruled by warlords for its entire existence. War is what they do. Defeating them in war just makes them go back and plan a new way to defeat you. It will never end unless you want to slaughter every living being in Afghanistan, and that is unacceptable.

[Max Rockatansky]

Are you Colin Powell?

100% incorrect. The United States is a sovereign nation. It can destroy every Pottery Barn and have zero obligation to fix them. After 9-11 the US had every right to invade Afghanistan to end it as an al Qaeda training camp and to punish the Taliban for harboring al Qaeda. The occupation was mission shift into an area where there was no victory possible. It was silly and harmful to all concerned.

No, but I support the logic. Sure, we can burn down every country in reach and we have no obligation to do anything. However, smart people realize actions have consequences. We saw the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles. We saw the consequences of abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan War. We've also seen the consequences of body count wars like Vietnam and occupation nightmares like Iraq.

It's better to work smarter, not harder. Enlightened self-interest should guide our actions.

[Peter1469]

No, but I support the logic. Sure, we can burn down every country in reach and we have no obligation to do anything. However, smart people realize actions have consequences. We saw the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles. We saw the consequences of abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan War. We've also seen the consequences of body count wars like Vietnam and occupation nightmares like Iraq.

It's better to work smarter, not harder. Enlightened self-interest should guide our actions.

And working smarter in Europe after WWII included the Marshal plan. Working smarter in Afghanistan would require not trying to give warring tribes a strong central government based on Jeffersonian Democracy that they don't want or understand.

[texan]

Look, dude, I get that partisanism and divisiveness are all the rage these days, but just like with Syria, this issue is not a right-left, Republican-Democrat, black-white issue. There are people from all camps on both sides of this issue. So cut out the bullshit and use your own head.

I really don't think you get it dude. Our president has weakened our position world wide. Putin has been undermining most things we have been trying to do, in 2008 he tried to crash our dollar. Remember this "after my re-election I will be able to do more" something like that, well it wasn't because Obama was about to get tough. He started giving things to Putin and asking for nothing in return, first dip stick move when you are dealing with a snake. Putin has been undermining all the way back to the Iraq war.

You and I see several things similarly, but I am right on this one. Do not trust this guy or any of his allies they are liars and thieves. They are bad guys. Bad guys are usually bullies. They only respect being punched in the nose and there are ways to do that and we haven't even gotten close to drawing any blood. Just more half ass lines nobody better cross.

"This world has walls son and somebody has to protect them and who is gonna do that? You at your DC parties where the things we stand for is used as a punchline?" Well you know what was said in this movie and it was right on, better watch this guy and stop playing footsies.