PDA

View Full Version : tPF Jill Stein is????? WELL she is an Idiot!



zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 01:43 PM
I am trying to listen to her, and watching her talk about ISIS and how to stop them?

Apparently, she believes that they can't get weapons, if we don't provide them?

I think that she and Johnson, have been smoking way too much Pot!

She has to be HIGH!!!!!

Chris
09-04-2016, 01:52 PM
I've heard her talk. Next to Clinton and Trump they're idiots and she's a genius.

I do disagree with most of her proposed policies though.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 01:56 PM
I am trying to listen to her, and watching her talk about ISIS and how to stop them?

Apparently, she believes that they can't get weapons, if we don't provide them?

I think that she and Johnson, have been smoking way too much Pot!

She has to be HIGH!!!!!



She's extremely lacking in foreign policy knowledge.

She understands economics -- well, a ba$tardized version of it, anyway.

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:02 PM
ok well the alternative to Stein's plan is a continuance of more and more weapons dealing (both publicly and privately) across the globe and more conflict that we support by dealing weapons around the globe. I'll choose Stein's idiocy based on simple political name calling than I would true idiocy which is what has gotten many of these countries, and us, to their/our current points.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:02 PM
I think if she gets into the debates, she does not even get 1%.

I am sorry, she has no clue, the elevator, does not reach the top floor.

Chris
09-04-2016, 02:03 PM
She's extremely lacking in foreign policy knowledge.

She understands economics -- well, a ba$tardized version of it, anyway.

Oh, you mean Keynesian Economics. :P

Chris
09-04-2016, 02:06 PM
ok well the alternative to Stein's plan is a continuance of more and more weapons dealing (both publicly and privately) across the globe and more conflict that we support by dealing weapons around the globe. I'll choose Stein's idiocy based on simple political name calling than I would true idiocy which is what has gotten many of these countries, and us, to their/our current points.

There's another alternative...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-iC4Lri2gk

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:08 PM
I am trying to listen to her, and watching her talk about ISIS and how to stop them?

Apparently, she believes that they can't get weapons, if we don't provide them?

I think that she and Johnson, have been smoking way too much Pot!

She has to be HIGH!!!!!

Or maybe she is just more informed than most about what is happening in the Middle East.



Amnesty report: ISIS armed with U.S. weapons (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapons-u-s-/)


The Islamic State Just Got Their Hands on More U.S. Weapons (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/29/the-islamic-state-just-got-their-hands-on-more-u-s-weapons-syria-rebels/)


Remember Those 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels That The U.S. Armed? ISIS Got Some Of Those Weapons Too (http://ijr.com/2014/09/175685-remember-moderate-rebels-syria-obama-armed-isis-got-weapons/)


The Red Line and the Rat Line (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line)

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:08 PM
ok well the alternative to Stein's plan is a continuance of more and more weapons dealing (both publicly and privately) across the globe and more conflict that we support by dealing weapons around the globe. I'll choose Stein's idiocy based on simple political name calling than I would true idiocy which is what has gotten many of these countries, and us, to their/our current points.

Stein is an extreme isolationist.

While that is refreshing compared to the jingoism of Hillary, it's completely counterfactual to the globalism being pushed by the Progressives.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:09 PM
She's extremely lacking in foreign policy knowledge.

What did she say that was wrong?

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:11 PM
ok well the alternative to Stein's plan is a continuance of more and more weapons dealing (both publicly and privately) across the globe and more conflict that we support by dealing weapons around the globe. I'll choose Stein's idiocy based on simple political name calling than I would true idiocy which is what has gotten many of these countries, and us, to their/our current points.

The problem is we are not the only nation that sells weapons, So you are not going to stop those conflicts form happening. What you are going to do is insure that the side that is sympathetic to the USA. looses.

I like the idea, but when checked with reality, it is foolish.

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:11 PM
The problem is we are not the only nation that sells weapons, So you are not going to stop those conflicts form happening. What you are going to do is insure that the side that is sympathetic to the USA. looses.

I like the idea, but when checked with reality, it is foolish.

but mom everybody else is doing it!

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:13 PM
What did she say that was wrong?

That if the USA stops selling Weapons and Closes our military bases, we will be safer than we are today?

It would be great if we all could get along, but that is not reality. So defunding those that are more sympathetic would only insure that those that do sympathize with the USA, will be unarmed.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:13 PM
Every step of the way, ISIS has depended on the west and its allies for its weaponry and logistical support networks.

Whether it's the Obama administration funneling arms to shadowy rebel groups in Libya and Syria, Turkey facilitating the transit of jihadists into Syria via their southern border, or Saudi Arabia providing them with everything from arms to money to intelligence, ISIS is heavily if not exclusively dependent on them for their continued prowess in battle.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:14 PM
but mom everybody else is doing it!

OK So what happens to Israel? We close our bases and stop selling them military weapons. Is Russia going to stop selling the Arabs, and Terrorist?

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:14 PM
That if the USA stops selling Weapons and Closes our military bases, we will be safer than we are today?

It would be great if we all could get along, but that is not reality. So defunding those that are more sympathetic would only insure that those that do sympathize with the USA, will be unarmed.

Did she say we should stop selling weapons and close our military bases or did she say we should stop selling SOME weapons and close SOME military bases? Because that distinction makes a big difference.

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:19 PM
OK So what happens to Israel? We close our bases and stop selling them military weapons. Is Russia going to stop selling the Arabs, and Terrorist?

You're basically saying that if everyone else is dealing arms and creating wars and conflicts around the globe then we may as well be the best at it, right? Morals go out the door as long as you're winning, right? If the US and its allies stopped arming the rest of the world and, I don't know, focused on not fighting proxy wars and spreading conflict to further our footprint then perhaps we wouldn't need a military budget that is more than most other world powers combined and a foreign policy that is rooted in preserving empire, then maybe there would be less conflict.

Out of curiosity do you support fast and furious? or do you condemn those arms dealings because of the D?

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:26 PM
What did she say that was wrong?

Nearly everything, from her idea that it'd be just peachy if we pulled our peacekeeping forces out of places they've been needed for decades, in addition to thinking the extremists can't find weapons if we don't supply them.

Can we put you down for agreeing with her?

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:29 PM
You're basically saying that if everyone else is dealing arms and creating wars and conflicts around the globe then we may as well be the best at it, right? Morals go out the door as long as you're winning, right? If the US and its allies stopped arming the rest of the world and, I don't know, focused on not fighting proxy wars and spreading conflict to further our footprint then perhaps we wouldn't need a military budget that is more than most other world powers combined and a foreign policy that is rooted in preserving empire, then maybe there would be less conflict.


That's a nice thought, but it rests on the supposition that humans will quit acting like humans and all join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Thousands of years of history tell us that's unlikely to happen.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:30 PM
Did she say we should stop selling weapons and close our military bases or did she say we should stop selling SOME weapons and close SOME military bases? Because that distinction makes a big difference.

Now I only know what she said today on Fox. So If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize. But Today she called for the closing of all Military installations and bases not inside of the USA. Reducing the Pentagons budget by 50% or more. and for the Ending of Military Equipment sales to all countries.

She did call for freezing of all US assets for those country's buying and for those that continued to sell including our allies. Which of course would mean that they would move that money first. But That was a good part of her terrible plan.

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:31 PM
That's a nice thought, but it rests on the supposition that humans will quit acting like humans and all join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Thousands of years of history tell us that's unlikely to happen.

you know what they say about insanity right? Maybe it's time to stop participating in it.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:34 PM
You're basically saying that if everyone else is dealing arms and creating wars and conflicts around the globe then we may as well be the best at it, right? Morals go out the door as long as you're winning, right? If the US and its allies stopped arming the rest of the world and, I don't know, focused on not fighting proxy wars and spreading conflict to further our footprint then perhaps we wouldn't need a military budget that is more than most other world powers combined and a foreign policy that is rooted in preserving empire, then maybe there would be less conflict.

Out of curiosity do you support fast and furious? or do you condemn those arms dealings because of the D?

OK so if Pro Communism Groups or Pro Radical Islam Groups not get to win every war, because the opposition is unarmed. The Conflicts do stop. Because these groups will murder those that do not believe the way that they do.

Now you have all of the Middle East, All of the East Russian and China, Japan is gone. Australia is gone. So it is the UK and the USA that are left. The Radical Islamic states still think that the USA is the Great Satin, and Russia still has us as enemy Number one.

Do you think that we are safer or less safe, knowing that we can't stop the training or importation of Terrorist into the west?

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:34 PM
Nearly everything, from her idea that it'd be just peachy if we pulled our peacekeeping forces out of places they've been needed for decades, in addition to thinking the extremists can't find weapons if we don't supply them.

Can we put you down for agreeing with her?

Just peachy? Is that what she said?

And of course they could find weapons. They just couldn't find one billion dollars worth of up-armored Humvees (http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-has-1b-worth-us-humvee-armored-vehicles-one-was-used-mondays-suicide-bombing-1946521), for example. I think if you knew the full extent of US weaponry in the hands of ISIS, you might take her position a little more seriously.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:35 PM
That's a nice thought, but it rests on the supposition that humans will quit acting like humans and all join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Thousands of years of history tell us that's unlikely to happen.

Except she's not saying we should have no military. She's saying we should have a military that concentrates on defending America.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:36 PM
Nearly everything, from her idea that it'd be just peachy if we pulled our peacekeeping forces out of places they've been needed for decades, in addition to thinking the extremists can't find weapons if we don't supply them.

Can we put you down for agreeing with her?

The funny part is, the radicals are not getting their weapons from the USA, The left just wants to make sure that they have no opposition.

It should not be surprising? Look at what they want to do with Gun control in the USA. Take the guns from law abiding citizens, the criminals can have all they want.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:36 PM
you know what they say about insanity right? Maybe it's time to stop participating in it.

I'm not the one who seems to think the humane race is going to change on a dime.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:39 PM
Except she's not saying we should have no military. She's saying we should have a military that concentrates on defending America.

As long as Americans don't travel to other countries, as long as we have no financial assets in other nations, as long as we have no allies that seek our assistance, as long as we are prepared to destroy all treaties, sure, we can pull out military presence out of every place in the world and bring it home.

Is that what you're advocating?

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:39 PM
OK so if Pro Communism Groups or Pro Radical Islam Groups not get to win every war, because the opposition is unarmed. The Conflicts do stop. Because these groups will murder those that do not believe the way that they do.

Now you have all of the Middle East, All of the East Russian and China, Japan is gone. Australia is gone. So it is the UK and the USA that are left. The Radical Islamic states still think that the USA is the Great Satin, and Russia still has us as enemy Number one.

Do you think that we are safer or less safe, knowing that we can't stop the training or importation of Terrorist into the west?

You do realize that all you're doing, all you're advocating for, is perpetual war and empire right? You are using hypotheticals to justify a military footprint that spans the globe along with arms dealing across the globe ONLY to maintain and push for US dominance. There will always be bad people mixed in with the good in all countries, but perhaps we need to stop looking at the world in such a narrow point of view as political/cultural/religious/economic borders and theaters of conflict. The way you're talking is that there will always be a group or nation lurking in the shadows and so therefore we need to dominate the world. It's a world of paranoia, distrust, conflict, and war. The things you want only perpetuate that, it does not end it.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:40 PM
You're basically saying that if everyone else is dealing arms and creating wars and conflicts around the globe then we may as well be the best at it, right? Morals go out the door as long as you're winning, right? If the US and its allies stopped arming the rest of the world and, I don't know, focused on not fighting proxy wars and spreading conflict to further our footprint then perhaps we wouldn't need a military budget that is more than most other world powers combined and a foreign policy that is rooted in preserving empire, then maybe there would be less conflict.

Out of curiosity do you support fast and furious? or do you condemn those arms dealings because of the D?

OK Fast and Furious?

What was that designed to do? Well on paper it was designed to sell weapons to Drug Cartels, track them and then shut them down.

What did Obama and Holder really want to do. They wanted to sell Military Style Weapons to Drug Cartels. Have them use them to commit acts of violence against USA citizens and Law enforcement.

Blame the Store owners and prosecute them for doing what the Government asked them to do, and enforce more restrictive Gun control measures on the law abiding citizens of the USA. They got caught, and had to seal all of the records.

So NO I would not support that because it was selling weapons to people that wanted to kill us, to punish Law abiding Citizens.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:40 PM
The funny part is, the radicals are not getting their weapons from the USA, The left just wants to make sure that they have no opposition.

It should not be surprising? Look at what they want to do with Gun control in the USA. Take the guns from law abiding citizens, the criminals can have all they want.


There has to be a happy medium between a jingoist like Hillary and an isolationist like Stein.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:40 PM
Now I only know what she said today on Fox. So If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize. But Today she called for the closing of all Military installations and bases not inside of the USA. Reducing the Pentagons budget by 50% or more. and for the Ending of Military Equipment sales to all countries.

She did call for freezing of all US assets for those country's buying and for those that continued to sell including our allies. Which of course would mean that they would move that money first. But That was a good part of her terrible plan.

So we would still have the largest military in the world by far.

https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif&op=noop

And we'd keep all our military technology for ourselves, meaning our qualitative edge over other countries would be easier to maintain.

Sounds good!

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:40 PM
I'm not the one who seems to think the humane race is going to change on a dime.

i'm not either, and neither is Stein, but instead what she is wanting to do is start trying, whereas you and others don't.

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:41 PM
OK Fast and Furious?

What was that designed to do? Well on paper it was designed to sell weapons to Drug Cartels, track them and then shut them down.

What did Obama and Holder really want to do. They wanted to sell Military Style Weapons to Drug Cartels. Have them use them to commit acts of violence against USA citizens and Law enforcement.

Blame the Store owners and prosecute them for doing what the Government asked them to do, and enforce more restrictive Gun control measures on the law abiding citizens of the USA. They got caught, and had to seal all of the records.

So NO I would not support that because it was selling weapons to people that wanted to kill us, to punish Law abiding Citizens.

So no arms around the world that we have sold or given have ever been used by people that want to kill us except for Obama's fast and furious?

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:42 PM
There has to be a happy medium between a jingoist like Hillary and an isolationist like Stein.

please don't say Donald J Trump

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:43 PM
The funny part is, the radicals are not getting their weapons from the USA...

Try again, Zelmo.

Amnesty report: ISIS armed with U.S. weapons (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapons-u-s-/)

The Islamic State Just Got Their Hands on More U.S. Weapons (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/29/the-islamic-state-just-got-their-hands-on-more-u-s-weapons-syria-rebels/)

Remember Those 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels That The U.S. Armed? ISIS Got Some Of Those Weapons Too (http://ijr.com/2014/09/175685-remember-moderate-rebels-syria-obama-armed-isis-got-weapons/)

The Red Line and the Rat Line (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line)

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:44 PM
i'm not either, and neither is Stein, but instead what she is wanting to do is start trying, whereas you and others don't.

It's nice to try -- but Stein wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We are stationed, and committed through treaty to protect our allies. Our presence is the only thing that's kept innocent people from being obliterated in some cases.

To second-guess decades of US policy, just because she wants to "be nicer," isn't practical. Ask yourself what Stein would have done in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Then, ask yourself if you'd support that.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:44 PM
I'm not the one who seems to think the humane race is going to change on a dime.

Well neither does Stein.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:45 PM
You do realize that all you're doing, all you're advocating for, is perpetual war and empire right? You are using hypotheticals to justify a military footprint that spans the globe along with arms dealing across the globe ONLY to maintain and push for US dominance. There will always be bad people mixed in with the good in all countries, but perhaps we need to stop looking at the world in such a narrow point of view as political/cultural/religious/economic borders and theaters of conflict. The way you're talking is that there will always be a group or nation lurking in the shadows and so therefore we need to dominate the world. It's a world of paranoia, distrust, conflict, and war. The things you want only perpetuate that, it does not end it.

That is not what I said at all, but it was a Brilliant Dodge of the Question. Hats off.

What I said is there are conflicts in the world. China vs Japan, and S Korea. Russia vs the Baltic States and in the Middle East Radical Islam vs Israel and the USA.

There are happing. I don't think that anyone can dispute that. We are one side and Russia, N. Korea and China sell arms to the other side. So now we are going to say to our friends and supporters. Well sorry this is not working, we are not going to support you, and thus, you are going to loose the conflict and likely die. To bad, so Sad.

Then we are counting on these enemies of the USA and our way of life to say? You know that USA, they are not so bad, we should just leave them alone. What do you really think that the odds of that happening are?

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:46 PM
As long as Americans don't travel to other countries, as long as we have no financial assets in other nations, as long as we have no allies that seek our assistance, as long as we are prepared to destroy all treaties, sure, we can pull out military presence out of every place in the world and bring it home.

Is that what you're advocating?

Why couldn't Americans travel to other countries or have financial assets overseas or enter into treaties?

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:47 PM
i'm becoming more and more resigned to the fact that the human race is fully deserving of its future fate. It will either be through destructive armed conflict, the inevitable deterioration of vital natural resources meant for survival, an unsupportive climate, the destruction of ecosystems, or a combination of all of it, but it's going to happen. Why? because we are the only species on this planet that actively wants to achieve all of those outcomes by ignoring the future in order to thrive in the present.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:48 PM
Try again, Zelmo.

Amnesty report: ISIS armed with U.S. weapons (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapons-u-s-/)

The Islamic State Just Got Their Hands on More U.S. Weapons (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/29/the-islamic-state-just-got-their-hands-on-more-u-s-weapons-syria-rebels/)

Remember Those 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels That The U.S. Armed? ISIS Got Some Of Those Weapons Too (http://ijr.com/2014/09/175685-remember-moderate-rebels-syria-obama-armed-isis-got-weapons/)

The Red Line and the Rat Line (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line)

http://www.meforum.org/2690/russian-chinese-support-for-iran

Iran is the number one sponsor of ISIS, and they get them form Russia and China.

Now I agree that when Obama, did his own thing and left Iraq, well before the recommendation of the Military leaders.

There were a lot of our weapons that fell into the hands of ISIS. We have also backed some pretty bad characters of that we can't deny. But if we stop, that means our allies will lose .

You tell me how well that is going to work out for the USA

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:49 PM
Try again, Zelmo.

Amnesty report: ISIS armed with U.S. weapons (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapons-u-s-/)

The Islamic State Just Got Their Hands on More U.S. Weapons (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/29/the-islamic-state-just-got-their-hands-on-more-u-s-weapons-syria-rebels/)

Remember Those 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels That The U.S. Armed? ISIS Got Some Of Those Weapons Too (http://ijr.com/2014/09/175685-remember-moderate-rebels-syria-obama-armed-isis-got-weapons/)

The Red Line and the Rat Line (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line)


From your CNN link:


The bulk of ISIS' arsenal, he said, is made up of older Soviet-era weapons, brought into Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War and the U.S. occupation between 2003 and 2007.

"It is mainly old stock, but they do have some more sophisticated weaponries that were more recently manufactured," he said.
One of the most common types of weapon used by ISIS fighters is the Russian-made AK automatic rifle, but ISIS forces are also equipped with U.S. military-issue M-16s and guns manufactured in China, Germany, Croatia and Belgium, according to the report.




Obama's made gargantuan mistakes in the Middle East, and yes, some have resulted in extremists getting their hands on US-made weapons. It's obvious, however, that they also have a majority of non-US weapons.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:50 PM
It's nice to try -- but Stein wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We are stationed, and committed through treaty to protect our allies. Our presence is the only thing that's kept innocent people from being obliterated in some cases.

To second-guess decades of US policy, just because she wants to "be nicer," isn't practical. Ask yourself what Stein would have done in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Then, ask yourself if you'd support that.

People always throw Pearl Harbor out there as if it existed in a historical vacuum, but the truth is that Pearl Harbor was the result of decades of prior meddling and provocation on the part of the US empire.

In other words, if people had listened to the "isolationists" in the first place, there would have been no Pearl Harbor, and there would have been no Hitler either.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:50 PM
please don't say Donald J Trump

LOL -- I wasn't going to, but, now that you brought it up -- Trump is pretty much in-between on that one.

His biggest downfalls lie elsewhere.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:50 PM
i'm becoming more and more resigned to the fact that the human race is fully deserving of its future fate. It will either be through destructive armed conflict, the inevitable deterioration of vital natural resources meant for survival, an unsupportive climate, the destruction of ecosystems, or a combination of all of it, but it's going to happen. Why? because we are the only species on this planet that actively wants to achieve all of those outcomes by ignoring the future in order to thrive in the present.

So here is your big chance to sell me on letting all of the world with the possible exception of the UK come under control of our enemies. How is that going to work out well for the USA

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:51 PM
Well neither does Stein.

In that case -- she's looking forward to watching a lot of bloodshed and turning a blind eye.

Chloe
09-04-2016, 02:53 PM
So here is your big chance to sell me on letting all of the world with the possible exception of the UK come under control of our enemies. How is that going to work out well for the USA

Well first you have to believe that I will buy into the fear mongering you are using right now, which I don't, and second, you underestimate the rest of the world in order to inflate the notion that only America can be all good and all powerful.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:53 PM
Why couldn't Americans travel to other countries or have financial assets overseas or enter into treaties?

Many of those treaties involve the US providing military assistance. We'd have to tear them up.

We certainly would have no leverage overseas for the protection of US investments if we had no more influence in those areas.

Once we pulled out and the natives took over -- you'd be foolhardy to visit some of those spots.

I have yet to hear the upside to Stein's pipe dreams. Perhaps you could share it?

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:54 PM
People always throw Pearl Harbor out there as if it existed in a historical vacuum, but the truth is that Pearl Harbor was the result of decades of prior meddling and provocation on the part of the US empire.

In other words, if people had listened to the "isolationists" in the first place, there would have been no Pearl Harbor, and there would have been no Hitler either.

This is funny!

First you are correct. The USA was sticking it's nose into the affairs of the Empire of Japan.

Japan had attacked our then ally China. So what did the USA do

#1 We stopped selling any weapons to Japan, or materials to wage war, like oil and steel.

#2 We froze all of Japan's assets in the USA.

Sounds kind of familiar does it not???

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:54 PM
Iran is the number one sponsor of ISIS...

The is one of the silliest things I've ever heard in my life.

Why would Iran, the heart and soul of Shia Islam in the Middle East, sponsor a radical Sunni terrorist group that wants to exterminate every Shiite in the world, and wants to destroy Iran?

You realize that Iranian forces and Hezbollah are fighting ISIS as we speak?

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 02:55 PM
Well first you have to believe that I will buy into the fear mongering you are using right now, which I don't, and second, you underestimate the rest of the world in order to inflate the notion that only America can be all good and all powerful.

It doesn't have to be fear-mongering.

It only has to be a practice in lessons-learned.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:56 PM
Well first you have to believe that I will buy into the fear mongering you are using right now, which I don't, and second, you underestimate the rest of the world in order to inflate the notion that only America can be all good and all powerful.

So you are saying that Israel and the Jews will be OK without the backing of the USA, Ukraine and the Baltic will be OK without the threat of the USA.

What do you think is going to change??? Why are these conflicts just going to stop?

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 02:58 PM
It doesn't have to be fear-mongering.

It only has to be a practice in lessons-learned.

No, NO! Apparently the fact that we are selling items to Israel, Saudi, Jordan, Turkey is what is causing all of these issue.

Chloe and "E" are going to tell us how our friends are going to live in peace when they no longer have the ability to defend themselves?

They are going to toss in S Korea and Japan just for good measure.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 02:58 PM
From your CNN link:



Obama's made gargantuan mistakes in the Middle East, and yes, some have resulted in extremists getting their hands on US-made weapons. It's obvious, however, that they also have a majority of non-US weapons.

Yea, they have lots of AK-47s and other Russian small arms. But they also have at least a billion dollars worth of up-armored Humvees, which are basically small tanks. And they have also acquired highly advanced weaponry from the Libyan stockpile that Clinton and company were funneling into Syria, possibly even chemical weapons. Read "The Red Line and the Rat Line" by Seymour Hersh and you will see just how bad it is.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:05 PM
So here is your big chance to sell me on letting all of the world with the possible exception of the UK come under control of our enemies. How is that going to work out well for the USA

This is the typical Zelmo loaded question.

Baked into your request is the baseless assumption that western democracies will be conquered if we're not baby sitting them.

But why would any reasonable person make that assumption when western democracies (a) already have strong, advanced militaries and (b) advanced market economies capable of financing even bigger militaries?

For example, Russia's GDP is smaller than Italy's. The GDP of the European Union is almost twice as big as Russia's and China's combined.

More importantly, why should we assume those countries would fall to invasion when there is absolutely no indication that anyone wants to invade them?

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:07 PM
In that case -- she's looking forward to watching a lot of bloodshed and turning a blind eye.

We turn a blind eye to bloodshed all the time. And many times, we're the cause of the bloodshed. So that hardly seems like something new.

In any case, what bloodshed are you alluding to?

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 03:08 PM
This is the typical Zelmo loaded question.

Baked into your request is the baseless assumption that western democracies will be conquered if we're not baby sitting them.

But why would any reasonable person make that assumption when western democracies (a) already have strong, advanced militaries and (b) advanced market economies capable of financing even bigger militaries?

For example, Russia's GDP is smaller than Italy's. The GDP of the European Union is almost twice as big as Russia's and China's combined.

More importantly, why should we assume those countries would fall to invasion when there is absolutely no indication that anyone wants to invade them?

And I agree with all this, and if we were to sell them the plans so they could build their own??? I could see that as a viable option. But that is not what Jill is saying. Or said in this interview.

She said that we would stop exporting any Military products. If that was the case, they simply would not have the time to react and save their countries

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:11 PM
Many of those treaties involve the US providing military assistance. We'd have to tear them up.

Okay, so we'd have to make some new treaties.


We certainly would have no leverage overseas for the protection of US investments if we had no more influence in those areas.

Once we pulled out and the natives took over -- you'd be foolhardy to visit some of those spots.

Which areas are you talking about?


I have yet to hear the upside to Stein's pipe dreams. Perhaps you could share it?

We can start with saving hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Money that could go towards strengthening our own country.

And I think you are wildly over-inflating the beneficial effect the US empire has had on the world. If anything, it has been a destabilizing force. So ending it would promote peace, not imperil it.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:14 PM
This is funny!

First you are correct. The USA was sticking it's nose into the affairs of the Empire of Japan.

Japan had attacked our then ally China. So what did the USA do

#1 We stopped selling any weapons to Japan, or materials to wage war, like oil and steel.

#2 We froze all of Japan's assets in the USA.

Sounds kind of familiar does it not???

Our ally China!

Even funnier.

Because I know how much Americans care about the Chinese and their sovereignty.

In any case, WWII was a direct result of WWI. And WWI was a needless disaster that was easily avoidable.

In other words, the founding fathers were right: Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:17 PM
No, NO! Apparently the fact that we are selling items to Israel, Saudi, Jordan, Turkey is what is causing all of these issue.

Chloe and "E" are going to tell us how our friends are going to live in peace when they no longer have the ability to defend themselves?

They are going to toss in S Korea and Japan just for good measure.

Zelmo, if you want to spend your money and risk your life on protecting foreigners, then be my guest.

But the USA wasn't created in order to police the world or to protect some corporate executives overseas investments.

It was created in order to promote our general welfare and our common DEFENSE.

And that is why George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all pursued a policy of armed neutrality, otherwise known as non-interventionism.

You call yourself a conservative, but what are you conserving? Certainly not the foreign policy of our founding fathers.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 03:23 PM
People always throw Pearl Harbor out there as if it existed in a historical vacuum, but the truth is that Pearl Harbor was the result of decades of prior meddling and provocation on the part of the US empire.

In other words, if people had listened to the "isolationists" in the first place, there would have been no Pearl Harbor, and there would have been no Hitler either.

Oh, come on. You're exaggerating just a bit, don't you think?

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:25 PM
And I agree with all this, and if we were to sell them the plans so they could build their own??? I could see that as a viable option. But that is not what Jill is saying. Or said in this interview.

She said that we would stop exporting any Military products. If that was the case, they simply would not have the time to react and save their countries

Zelmo, these countries already produce many advanced military systems on their own. France produces Exocet missiles; Rafale fighter jets; Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, etc.; these are not backwater countries who rely on America for their military technology, they are highly advanced nation-states that have a history of warfare that LONG precedes ours.

You cannot keep pretending like Europe and SE Asia are helpless babies who cannot stand up an advanced military.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 03:26 PM
Which areas are you talking about?

Israel for starters.




We can start with saving hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Money that could go towards strengthening our own country.

And I think you are wildly over-inflating the beneficial effect the US empire has had on the world. If anything, it has been a destabilizing force. So ending it would promote peace, not imperil it.

We have *some* benefit, although I admit we do meddle. But, it shouldn't be an all-or-nothing thing. Stein simply doesn't have a clue.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 03:27 PM
Yea, they have lots of AK-47s and other Russian small arms. But they also have at least a billion dollars worth of up-armored Humvees, which are basically small tanks. And they have also acquired highly advanced weaponry from the Libyan stockpile that Clinton and company were funneling into Syria, possibly even chemical weapons. Read "The Red Line and the Rat Line" by Seymour Hersh and you will see just how bad it is.

So, we are actually fighting by proxy. Yuppers.

But, if we do not -- what is to act as a damper for those other nations who are funneling arms to certain groups?

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 03:28 PM
We turn a blind eye to bloodshed all the time. And many times, we're the cause of the bloodshed. So that hardly seems like something new.

In any case, what bloodshed are you alluding to?

Bloodshed in virtually areas where we have forces stationed as peacekeepers in addition to those we're under treaty to assist militarily should the need arise.

Why is this conversation taking such simplistic tones?

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:30 PM
Oh, come on. You're exaggerating just a bit, don't you think?

Not at all.

The Treaty of Versailles was a constant theme throughout Hitler's rise to power. He attacked it in almost every speech he gave. It was a source of national shame and indignation for Germans. If not for that treaty, it is unlikely that Hitler would have risen to power on a wave of nationalist, revanchist discontent. And that treaty would have never been signed if not for WWI and our involvement in it. This is precisely why George Washington warned Americans against involving themselves in the vicissitudes of European politics!

Peter1469
09-04-2016, 03:34 PM
There has to be a happy medium between a jingoist like Hillary and an isolationist like Stein.

There is. Realism- it the foreign policy sense of the term. Nation-states are the important actors on the world stage and each act to advance their national security interests.

From wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations))

Regardless of which definition is used, the theories of realism revolve around four central propositions:[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)#cite_note-Goodin_2010_133-2)

That states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals or international organizations,
That the international political system is anarchic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relations)) as there is no supranational authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational) that can enforce rules over the states,
That the actors in the international political system are rational (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_egoism) as their actions maximize their own self-interest, and
That all states desire power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_politics) so that they can ensure their own self-preservation.
Realism is often associated with Realpolitik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik) as both are based on the management of the pursuit, possession, and application of power. Realpolitik, however, is an older prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making (like foreign policy), while Realism is a particular paradigm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm), or wider theoretical and methodological framework, aimed at describing, explaining and, eventually, predicting events in the international relations domain. The theories of Realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of Liberalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_(international_relations)).

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:34 PM
Israel for starters.

Israel has one of the most powerful, advanced militaries in the world. And they have nuclear weapons. They can take care of themselves.

In any case, we're not responsible for Israel's security. We're not responsible for anyone's security except our own. If the founding fathers knew the US Constitution would be used to assume responsibility for the security of foreign countries, then they would have never ratified it in the first place.


We have *some* benefit, although I admit we do meddle. But, it shouldn't be an all-or-nothing thing. Stein simply doesn't have a clue.

Or perhaps the conventional wisdom is wrong. You should at least be open to the possibility.

And it's not "all or nothing". She still wants to maintain the largest military in the world, and she's not against using it to defend America. As far as I can tell, it's the same foreign policy as the founding fathers.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:36 PM
So, we are actually fighting by proxy. Yuppers.

But, if we do not -- what is to act as a damper for those other nations who are funneling arms to certain groups?

I honestly don't know what you mean.

Ethereal
09-04-2016, 03:38 PM
Bloodshed in virtually areas where we have forces stationed as peacekeepers in addition to those we're under treaty to assist militarily should the need arise.

So it's not guaranteed there would be bloodshed. We just assume it would happen.

But even if did happen, what of it? Why should Americans die in order to protect foreigners? Why did we declare our independence if we were just going to become to world's police force?


Why is this conversation taking such simplistic tones?

???

Peter1469
09-04-2016, 04:52 PM
http://www.meforum.org/2690/russian-chinese-support-for-iran

Iran is the number one sponsor of ISIS, and they get them form Russia and China.

Now I agree that when Obama, did his own thing and left Iraq, well before the recommendation of the Military leaders.

There were a lot of our weapons that fell into the hands of ISIS. We have also backed some pretty bad characters of that we can't deny. But if we stop, that means our allies will lose .

You tell me how well that is going to work out for the USA

I read the article. I don't believe that Iran is working with ISIL. They want to destroy Sunnis.

Peter1469
09-04-2016, 04:53 PM
People always throw Pearl Harbor out there as if it existed in a historical vacuum, but the truth is that Pearl Harbor was the result of decades of prior meddling and provocation on the part of the US empire.

In other words, if people had listened to the "isolationists" in the first place, there would have been no Pearl Harbor, and there would have been no Hitler either.

Even more immediate- FDR put an oil embargo on Japan. That was the proximate cause of Pearl.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 05:07 PM
Our ally China!

Even funnier.

Because I know how much Americans care about the Chinese and their sovereignty.

In any case, WWII was a direct result of WWI. And WWI was a needless disaster that was easily avoidable.

In other words, the founding fathers were right: Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Yes before WWII and the Revolution we were allies with China, Of course you know this but because Jill Stein's proposals are exactly what we did to Japan, You needed to change the subject.

The USA as a backing super power has kept the world out of a Real War, these stupid nation building things are annoying.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 05:08 PM
Zelmo, if you want to spend your money and risk your life on protecting foreigners, then be my guest.

But the USA wasn't created in order to police the world or to protect some corporate executives overseas investments.

It was created in order to promote our general welfare and our common DEFENSE.

And that is why George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all pursued a policy of armed neutrality, otherwise known as non-interventionism.

You call yourself a conservative, but what are you conserving? Certainly not the foreign policy of our founding fathers.

What happened the last time that the USA pursued a policy of Isolationism?

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 05:14 PM
So it's not guaranteed there would be bloodshed. We just assume it would happen.

But even if did happen, what of it? Why should Americans die in order to protect foreigners? Why did we declare our independence if we were just going to become to world's police force?



???

War And Terrorist acts never find there way to US shores. And with the world power shift to Communist countries of China and Russia? What are the odds that this would happen?

You get this attitude from a lot of the people that like the idea of anarchy. They think that everyone just wants to get along.

I don't really want to have to play catch up again and hope for the best. But people really think in this day and age, that if we are just nice to people and leave them alone, that they will leave us alone.

What will really happen is we will give them the freedom to plan and execute massive attacks in the USA. Then of course these same people will still blame the USA

Peter1469
09-04-2016, 05:17 PM
What happened the last time that the USA pursued a policy of Isolationism?

The only time the US pursued isolationism was when it wasn't powerful enough to get involved in global matters. Smart move.

FindersKeepers
09-04-2016, 05:22 PM
So it's not guaranteed there would be bloodshed. We just assume it would happen.

Yes, we assume. But, it's not a blind assumption. We have thousands of years of history as to how human beings interact - and war. Even today, here in the US where virtually everyone has a chance at a good life -- if only they follow society's dictates -- we see assaults, rapes, murders...even here. Right around the world, we have factions vying for power, via violence. Erdogan is seeking to kill the Kurds, Assad wants to put down the "rebels." Russia is happy to kill the rebels.

That's simply not going to stop unless we start pumping some sort of happy chemical into the atmosphere. Men beat their wives and girlfriends, parents abuse little children. Power-hungry adults seek public office.

What is new in the world that makes you think this is changing?


But even if did happen, what of it? Why should Americans die in order to protect foreigners? Why did we declare our independence if we were just going to become to world's police force?

That's a double-edged sword.

If you were walking down the road and you saw a toddler drowning in a pond in the park would you run to help? Or would you walk away because the water might be over your head and you can't swim? What would you do?





???[/QUOTE]

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 05:23 PM
The only time the US pursued isolationism was when it wasn't powerful enough to get involved in global matters. Smart move.

We certainly tried at beginning of WWII, had we been more active millions of lives could have been saved.

Peter1469
09-04-2016, 05:25 PM
We certainly tried at beginning of WWII, had we been more active millions of lives could have been saved.

I doubt it. The US was smart to let the others bleed themselves before we stepped in.

zelmo1234
09-04-2016, 05:28 PM
I doubt it. The US was smart to let the others bleed themselves before we stepped in.

I can't think of one time in history that allowing evil to grow is a good Idea.

Peter1469
09-04-2016, 07:01 PM
I can't think of one time in history that allowing evil to grow is a good Idea.

Well the US has consistently used that delaying tactic.