john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Damn, this may be a first. A welfare statist with a sense of humor. Who-da figured?
Vi
Honestly, if she gave you a BJ you'd come away with racing stripes.
A Nightmare for the Left ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Honestly, if she gave you a BJ you'd come away with racing stripes.
ViRedd
New Member
Funny.
I don't like any of the three candidates. They all suck.
Hillary & O'bama would spend us further into oblivion. McCain would most likely esclate the wars in the Middle East.
Its astounding that in a country with 300 million people that these three are the best we can come up with.
Americans are truely sheeple. We are putting up with bailouts for Wall Street, and politicians attempting to garner votes with promises of foreclosure bailouts. What happened to the idea that if you take a risk in an attempt to make money, you also take the risk of loss? The way its becoming now is ... Heads you win, tails the taxpayer loses. That just doesn't seem right to me.
Vi
I don't like any of the three candidates. They all suck.
Hillary & O'bama would spend us further into oblivion. McCain would most likely esclate the wars in the Middle East.
Its astounding that in a country with 300 million people that these three are the best we can come up with.
Americans are truely sheeple. We are putting up with bailouts for Wall Street, and politicians attempting to garner votes with promises of foreclosure bailouts. What happened to the idea that if you take a risk in an attempt to make money, you also take the risk of loss? The way its becoming now is ... Heads you win, tails the taxpayer loses. That just doesn't seem right to me.
Vi
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Lol, sheeple. I don't think the totality of the amount of added debt or spending would be much different among the three. There will probably be small incremental changes among certain programs but no real difference. Something that I find interesting is the increase in debt to gdp growth though. Check out how that's been playing out: National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's not a source I'd like to hang my hat on though.
medicineman
New Member
After watching Obama question Petraeous, I'm thinkin we'll have at least 80,000 troops in Iraq for a long-long time. Seems that none of the candidates have a clear plan of withdrawel and Obama sounds like he's hedging already. I mean how fucking simple is it. You line up the transports and head for the Kuwait border, bye-bye, adios, Via-con-Dios, etc. etc. The Iraqi government would either sink or swim. Most of the talent has left Iraq, so the rest could duke it out and to the victor goes the spoils, then the braintrust could return to Iraq and form a workable government. As long as we coddle them, they'll never step up. If we leave, I'm sure the violence would subside, as we are the major thorn in the Iraqis side, there may be some ethnic clensing, but that is bound to happen no matter when we leave. The time is NOW.Lol, sheeple. I don't think the totality of the amount of added debt or spending would be much different among the three. There will probably be small incremental changes among certain programs but no real difference. Something that I find interesting is the increase in debt to gdp growth though. Check out how that's been playing out: National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's not a source I'd like to hang my hat on though.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
even such fools as obama know that it's just not that simple. iraq may have been a stupid idea in the first place, but the damage has been done and we now have another debt to repay. to roil up the hornets' nest then step aside and watch the carnage does us no more good than it would do them, it would turn a possible ally into an enemy overnight and show the world that we have abandoned any form of ethics. if you think america's reputation is in sorry shape now, how do you think we would appear to the world if we turned tail now. we have to pay for our mistakes and so long as this is one nation this mistake belongs to all of us.
to say that war is an atrocity cannot be denied. to say that it is unfair for young men and women to die for the foolishness of old men is stating the obvious, but what in this life is fair. to say that we must pull out now is the ultimate example of a failure to take responsibility for the actions of the society we are all a part of. even those of us who were against this madness in the first place must share in the shame, but our humiliation shouldn't lead us into further transgressions.
though i do agree it's time we stopped coddling iraq's infant government, there is no "clear plan of withdrawal" from the chaos we have created. we will be paying for this idiocy for years to come and most likely there will never be peace left in the wake of this fiasco. we must, however, attempt to find some way to navigate through this situation with some sort of honor. it is so easy to say "honor be damned, let's just cut our losses and run", but it is our moral responsibility to clean up our own mess and leave some semblance of order behind when we do withdraw.
medicineman
New Member
Honor be damned. There isn't one fucking thing in Iraq worth the death of one more American. It is this Honor bullshit that sustains war in the first place. Huge Egos running rampant with power calling the moves is exactly what we need to abandon. Fuck the powers that be. Bring home the troops now. Fuck Iraq. We've expended 4,000++ lives 30,000++ wounded a trillion bucks and those assholes are arguing about who gets what, fuck them and all those that let that puppet government hold rule over them. Time to leave now!!!
ViRedd
New Member
Suppose we leave Iraq. Suppose Iran and/or Syria takes our place. What does that scene look like?
It won't happen because the Middle East is way too important to our security, both from an economic and safety standpoint. Besides that, Israel is about ready to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Were gonna need bases in Iraq.
Vi
It won't happen because the Middle East is way too important to our security, both from an economic and safety standpoint. Besides that, Israel is about ready to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Were gonna need bases in Iraq.
Vi
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Suppose, suppose, suppose. It's nothing but a slippery slope argument. The likelihood of Iran or Syria invading and occupying Iraq successfully is near nil, and that's assuming that they'd do such a foolish thing. Neither of them have the economic capabilities to sustain an occupation, kind of like us only they're not even developed countries and their militaries are dwarfed by ours. Plus, Syria is a majority Sunni country. To my knowledge, Iran hasn't been proven to be engaging in a nuclear development program for weapons, only civilian power. In fact, there have been numerous times the IAEA has called the United States on its overhyped rhetoric and bullshit, supposed evidence. Why should we suppose that either country would take on such a task?
medicineman
New Member
I'll guarantee you our safety and economic status would be better served by leaving the middle east and negotiating instead of demanding. I mean, think about it, how would you like the situation to be reversed, 160 thousand foriegn troops running through the streets of California kicking in doors and winning the hearts and minds of americans to kowtow to the puppet government set up by the invadors. Ya gotta think sometimes instead of just taking everything our government says for granted. The Iraqis want the US out, so lets leave.
If you weren't an insurgent, you would be a traitor to your country a spinless coward, well, maybe that's the case. I know if the chinese had 160K troops patroling the streets of Vegas, I'd be looking for a way to snipe off a few, heck if the US had 160K troops patrolling my town, I'd be awfully tempted to do the same. Ya gotta remember, the Iraqis see us as foriegn invaders not saviours. The ones that see us as saviours are the collaborators of the US puppet government and that is all the news the US allows us to see.
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
Suppose, suppose, suppose. It's nothing but a slippery slope argument. The likelihood of Iran or Syria invading and occupying Iraq successfully is near nil, and that's assuming that they'd do such a foolish thing. Neither of them have the economic capabilities to sustain an occupation, kind of like us only they're not even developed countries and their militaries are dwarfed by ours. Plus, Syria is a majority Sunni country. To my knowledge, Iran hasn't been proven to be engaging in a nuclear development program for weapons, only civilian power. In fact, there have been numerous times the IAEA has called the United States on its overhyped rhetoric and bullshit, supposed evidence. Why should we suppose that either country would take on such a task?
You are vehement when it comes to "supposing" but then you "suppose" that Iran will not invade Iraq, wheres the evidence of this?
Why people "suppose" Iran will move into Iraq is because if we leave now, they know that the only power stopping them is removed and demoralized with such phases as (fuck that middle east bulllshit, fuck honor).
The U.N. wouldn't do shit, they never have. No, you can guarantee Iran will move in the defenseless and broken Iraq if we leave.
I do not understand why you think Iran's economy could not afford the Iraq occupation, first off, they wouldn't even need a fearsome army, Iraq is already defeated, they wouldn't spend a ton of money trying to distinguish the enemy and civilians to reduce casualties, they destroy what they think could hint as a threat, and the money from Iraq's oil and treasury would be forfeit.
I have long heard people criticize ignorantly of the United States very lenient rules of engagement, but Iran doesn't have any. They will butcher and pillage at will.
We cannot have the madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad double the size of his country and resources.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
i could see that coming a mile away.
your standing in the world is determined by honor. this isn't the honor of chivalric odes or duels at dawn, but the honor of abiding by your agreements and claiming responsibility for your actions. without that honor you deny the better part of humanity and claim a place in the animal kingdom somewhere below irritable ferrets.
and you say you're not an anarchist.
government is all about ego and the need to control. to abandon those egos is to abandon government.
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Again, they haven't shown any tendency to invade and occupy a country before. I think that should be noted and not taken so lightly. Also, the problem for them wouldn't be with rolling across the Iraqi border, it'd be in the subsequent occupation. They have an ill equiped armed forces (compared to developed countries) of less than one-million and a relatively small and poor population. They'd have to expand the size of their armed forces and this in turn would shrink their labor force and kill productivity. Iran would also have to deal with internal strife at home over an occupation that would be unpopular even before more economic sanctions would be levied against them and then absorb an additional population of twenty-million people who are poorer than their own. Contrary to what you believe, wars and occupations are vastly more costly than the initial treasury used. It doesn't make any sense logistically. They also sit atop the second most abundant oil reserves in the world and are currently shifting more and more to coal and natural gas. This also makes it appear more plausible that their nuclear development program is for civilian power as they claim. That and there's no substantial evidence to the contrary. What gives you the idea that they're barbarians?
medicineman
New Member
your standing in the world is determined by honor. this isn't the honor of chivalric odes or duels at dawn, but the honor of abiding by your agreements and claiming responsibility for your actions. without that honor you deny the better part of humanity and claim a place in the animal kingdom somewhere below irritable ferrets.
If you actually believe this, then you must admit this government has no honor. This government (The Bush Government), Has lied from day one and continues to lie on a daily basis. Just check out Bush's statements of 2006 about how the war was going so well. Now we find out from Petraeous that there was outright civil war and The generals thought the whole place would explode while Bush was telling us the war was going well and we were making progress, outright lies to compliment the lies he told to get us in the war in the first place. I'd say there is little honor in the Bush Regime you so dearly defend. IQ check?
If you actually believe this, then you must admit this government has no honor. This government (The Bush Government), Has lied from day one and continues to lie on a daily basis. Just check out Bush's statements of 2006 about how the war was going so well. Now we find out from Petraeous that there was outright civil war and The generals thought the whole place would explode while Bush was telling us the war was going well and we were making progress, outright lies to compliment the lies he told to get us in the war in the first place. I'd say there is little honor in the Bush Regime you so dearly defend. IQ check?
medicineman
New Member
For the most part, I agree with you. Just like they took those 400 kids from their homes. Why didn't they take the men that were accused and leave the women and children alone. those kids will be traumatized for life. Now the government can just walk in and break up families because they arent adhering to the company rules, pathetic. This is the nanny state you speak of and I'm damned well against it. Stay the fuck out of family business. If the fathers are accused, get them and hold them accountable, don't fuck over little kids like they did. Government child rearing leaves a lot to be desired. There is not much love handed out in those places.
shnkrmn
Well-Known Member
Med, are you in favor of coerced sex with minors? Arranged, forced, incestuous polygamy? 'company rules'. Sheesh. 'stay the fuck out of family business'. Shame on you. The boys in FLDS communities are regularly expelled into the outside world for minor infractions as determined by the 'elders' where they become rootless drifting day laborers; it's not like there are enough females being produced in the community to afford THEM multiple child brides; just enough for a bunch of nasty old bigoted whackjobs who have a bottomless appetite for the taste of fresh meat. So the boys are just tossed out into an alien world.
What kind of society is that? This is a community that has been allowed to flourish (fester is more like it) without much interference from your 'nanny state'. If it was possible to arrest all those men, I think it should, and maybe will, be done. The threshold to invoke child protection laws is a lot lower than the standards for filing criminal charges necessary to arrest those men. Hopefully, evidence will be developed that will enable such criminal charges to be filed. Those children who you say will be traumatized for life LEFT WITH THEIR MOTHERS who are with them now. Maybe they don't know it yet, but almost any future they have will be better than what they were looking forward to as part of that cult. They will almost certainly be raised by their mothers, not 'government child-rearing'. Obviously the scale of this action is unprecedented and will pose significant challenges to the government agencies who will be responsible for ensuring a positive outcome.
'Government' may be inherently bad; I don't know. But government is inherently necessary to large-scale societies and this is a good example of why.
What kind of society is that? This is a community that has been allowed to flourish (fester is more like it) without much interference from your 'nanny state'. If it was possible to arrest all those men, I think it should, and maybe will, be done. The threshold to invoke child protection laws is a lot lower than the standards for filing criminal charges necessary to arrest those men. Hopefully, evidence will be developed that will enable such criminal charges to be filed. Those children who you say will be traumatized for life LEFT WITH THEIR MOTHERS who are with them now. Maybe they don't know it yet, but almost any future they have will be better than what they were looking forward to as part of that cult. They will almost certainly be raised by their mothers, not 'government child-rearing'. Obviously the scale of this action is unprecedented and will pose significant challenges to the government agencies who will be responsible for ensuring a positive outcome.
'Government' may be inherently bad; I don't know. But government is inherently necessary to large-scale societies and this is a good example of why.
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many of their mothers are twelve, thirteen or fourteen-year-old children themselves.
shnkrmn
Well-Known Member
errrrrr....... point taken. Of course, the children of such childwomen are presumable very, very young and are not going to be 'traumatized for life' by being taken in and raised in a hopefully non-abusive setting, hopefully by their mothers; organized mass child-abuse cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. Our country is large and full of vast spaces and interstices where freedom of thought and action can take place; that is a good thing. But when such interstices blossom into the foul cancers such as the FLDS that affect generations of citizens the state has a duty to interfere. I think that my objection to med's assertion that governments should stay out of 'family business' still holds water. What remedies should exist to prevent crimes against persons if local communities accept and condone them?
shnkrmn
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Med is all over the map; not as ideologically rigorous as you VI
Hey ... I'm lovin' this! Someone actually opposing Med's anti Nanny State comments.
Med ... I think yer coming around, Big Guy.
Vi
