Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Paris :(Follow

#77 Nov 20 2015 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
French civilians are not US responsibility. Period. They never were.


You've heard of NATO? You *think* that French civilians should not be US responsibility, but the actual fact is that for the last 5-6 decades a primary security factor for Europe has largely rested on US actions around the globe. I find is amusing when people argue that the US military is just too expensive, and parrot stats like (we spend as much on our military as the res tof the world combined), and then they fail to grasp that this military doesn't just sit on it's rear doing nothing. It has an effect on global politics. And a *huge* part of that has been "mess with our friends and we'll make you wish you'd not gotten up this century".

What do you think happens when the president of the US starts his administration basically going around the globe apologizing for doing that protecting for the previous 5-6 decades, and the follows that up with a number of actions that shows he's utterly unwilling to use the US military in said protective fashion. The irony is that the threat alone has often been sufficient, so that we don't actually have to take any action and no lives are lost. But once your enemies believe you wont act, then they will act against you and your friends, and that's when you'll see lots of deaths. So yes, whether you think the safety of French civilians in Paris *should* be related to US willingness to uses military force around the globe, the actual fact is that it has been the case for many decades now.

Quote:
You do realize that US has been waving its **** for a fair amount of time now, right?


Yes, and as long as we were doing that, the world has been a pretty safe place. Now that we've stopped, we're seeing the kinds of regional conflicts we haven't seen since before WW2 (and honestly more like pre WW1). It's just been so long that people have forgotten what that was like, and why we started doing what we were doing in the first place. You've just grown to assume that the world and its people magically "grew up" or something and now such conflicts are behind us. Um... No. It was because the US was around to whack anyone who got out of line. And once a few powers realize that the US wont act, it starts a flood of violence. Which is what we're seeing.


Quote:
Yes. It is a cause and effect. I can see you are able to recognize simple patterns now. I am not sure how closely you were following the 'refugee crisis' ( EU-version ), but this is absolutely a result of a retarded refugee policy generated by bureaucrats...


Um... Yeah. You're missing the forest for the trees. Why are there refugees and what are they fleeing? Now. Re-read my point about how if the US had taken a firm position on the Syrian revolution 3 years ago, this would not have happened. See? Cause and effect. Obama's waffling has caused a conflict that should not have lasted more than a few months (maybe 6 at the most) to drag on for 3 years. That's why there are so many refugees. Seriously, it's not that hard of a concept to grasp. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

Quote:
So we are sold Bush war part 3. Great. Lets go on that ride again. We root it out, and then wait for ISIS 2.0 rise from the ashes. Maybe we could try doing something else?


Like foolishly hope that human nature will magically change? Whack a mole is a terrible policy, I agree. But it's a better policy than any other we could attempt. After you've whacked a few moles, the rest stop popping their heads up. You stop, and you'll get more moles, not fewer. That may suck and all, but it's the only sane approach.


Quote:
Quote:
Seriously curious: What do you think we should be doing in response to these attacks?

Nothing. We were not attacked. France was. US is not France. France is part of EU. When something changes in that regard, let me know.


How very isolationist of you. Talk about repeating a policy that failed horrifically the last time it was tried.

Quote:
Of course, were it not for Bush and war started with a false claims of WMDs we probably would not be having this conversation...


And FDR knew about and allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. Right?

Quote:
I am against those as well. US should seriously start rolling down the empire. It costs too much.


Tell that to the dead in Paris.

Quote:
Do you really think we should not leave Germany or Japan, because it is about to become a source of violent action? I just find the notion silly.
It is not that it is unthinkable, but it is not 'normal' either. It is, however, very American. And silly. And wasteful.


And yet, someone has to do it, or the world devolves back into regional conflicts like it constantly engaged in prior to the rise of US power in the mid 20th century. The US has a pretty good track record of involving itself in these sorts of things and *not* just conquering everyone around them. You get that the replacement if we're not there probably wont be so kind.

And no. Europe has an absolutely horrific record of managing this on their own. Remember when people were shocked at the violence in the former Yugoslavia after the fall of the USSR? How could this happen in modern civilized European countries? Humanity didn't magically evolve just in the last 60 years or so. We're just as violent. We're just as hateful. Europe has been a peace because the US has been the "glue" holding them together in one cause. We go away, you'll see the next WW1 style conflict happen again within 20 years. Once it ceases being "NATO/West against the world", European nations will shrink its real politik in scope, and start seeing their neighbors as their enemies. And 60+ years of work will be flushed down a drain with the first resource conflict.

Peace is not a natural state for humanity. People really need to learn that.

Quote:
I think you misunderstood me on purpose here. I am not arguing for more surveillance. I am saying you can't whine no fair in a match after you are given superpowers.


But the Left's response to attacks like this will be to argue for more surveillance. That was my point.


Quote:
Was that supposed to be deep or something? I have no idea what that means.


Outward, meaning going to foreign lands, putting "troops on the ground" and fighting against enemies there so as to prevent them from being able to attack us on our soil. Inward meaning, beefing up security in our own lands to make us more safe, which inevitably means less freedoms at home, and arguably not a whole lot of safety (see the earlier comment about how despite draconian surveillance, with strong gun laws, it didn't prevent this attack, or protect the victims.

Trying to protect yourself from a foreign enemy by acting only in your own country is really really really stupid. You have to project power outward to be successful. Yet, it's this outward action that is decried as "warmongering". Um... What do you think the alternative is? Yup. More draconian "security" at home. Don't just argue *against* the foreign policy actions. Pick a course between the options you have.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2015 2:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 Nov 20 2015 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
What do you think happens when the president of the US starts his administration basically going around the globe apologizing for doing that protecting for the previous 5-6 decades, and the follows that up with a number of actions that shows he's utterly unwilling to use the US military in said protective fashion.

9-11?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#80 Nov 20 2015 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Yes, and as long as we were doing that, the world has been a pretty safe place. Now that we've stopped, we're seeing the kinds of regional conflicts we haven't seen since before WW2 (and honestly more like pre WW1). It's just been so long that people have forgotten what that was like, and why we started doing what we were doing in the first place. You've just grown to assume that the world and its people magically "grew up" or something and now such conflicts are behind us. Um... No. It was because the US was around to whack anyone who got out of line. And once a few powers realize that the US wont act, it starts a flood of violence. Which is what we're seeing.


Uh, I hate to break it to you, but there have been plenty of post ww2 regional conflicts...

I could create a long list, but you will predictably ignore it and say the same thing you said again in a few weeks.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#81 Nov 20 2015 at 10:21 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Yes, and as long as we were doing that, the world has been a pretty safe place. Now that we've stopped, we're seeing the kinds of regional conflicts we haven't seen since before WW2 (and honestly more like pre WW1). It's just been so long that people have forgotten what that was like, and why we started doing what we were doing in the first place. You've just grown to assume that the world and its people magically "grew up" or something and now such conflicts are behind us. Um... No. It was because the US was around to whack anyone who got out of line. And once a few powers realize that the US wont act, it starts a flood of violence. Which is what we're seeing.


Uh, I hate to break it to you, but there have been plenty of post ww2 regional conflicts...

I could create a long list, but you will predictably ignore it and say the same thing you said again in a few weeks.

Southeast Asia hasn't been this peaceful in centuries!
Wow, that wasn't quite was I was going for. Stupid migraine.

More like, Southeast Asia was quite the bucolic vacation destination after WW2.

Edited, Nov 21st 2015 10:33am by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#82 Nov 20 2015 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Trying to protect yourself from a foreign enemy by acting only in your own country is really really really stupid. You have to project power outward to be successful. Yet, it's this outward action that is decried as "warmongering". Um... What do you think the alternative is? Yup. More draconian "security" at home. Don't just argue *against* the foreign policy actions. Pick a course between the options you have.


There is also the old US isolationist approach option; but that's not something we are currently geared for. Good try with the false dichotomy.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#83 Nov 20 2015 at 11:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Um... Yeah. You're missing the forest for the trees. Why are there refugees and what are they fleeing? Now. Re-read my point about how if the US had taken a firm position on the Syrian revolution 3 years ago, this would not have happened. See? Cause and effect. Obama's waffling has caused a conflict that should not have lasted more than a few months (maybe 6 at the most) to drag on for 3 years. That's why there are so many refugees. Seriously, it's not that hard of a concept to grasp. Or at least, it shouldn't be.


So are you pro-Assad or pro-Salafi-fundamentalist? Or should we make the Levant US territory? Who should we support in order to minimize US risk?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#84 Nov 21 2015 at 2:13 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
So are you pro-Assad or pro-Salafi-fundamentalist? Or should we make the Levant US territory? Who should we support in order to minimize US risk?


The obvious solution is to bring the Ottomans back. You think Erdogan's game?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#85 Nov 22 2015 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
So are you pro-Assad or pro-Salafi-fundamentalist? Or should we make the Levant US territory? Who should we support in order to minimize US risk?


The obvious solution is to bring the Ottomans back. You think Erdogan's game?


There is nothing he is more game for.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#86 Nov 22 2015 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:

Um... Yeah. You're missing the forest for the trees. Why are there refugees and what are they fleeing?


There are Syrian refugees because ISIS saw an opportunity in Syria when the civil war started there.

Quote:
Now. Re-read my point about how if the US had taken a firm position on the Syrian revolution 3 years ago, this would not have happened. See? Cause and effect.


If the Bush administration hadn't disbanded the Iraqi military, there wouldn't be an ISIS to take advantage of the Syrian Civil war. See? Cause & effect.

If you want to draw a straight line from the recent attacks in Paris back to the root cause, it is literally the disbanding of the Iraqi army in 2003. Pretty much no one disputes that ISIS/ISIL are a direct result of that action (and then the Iraqi governments mistreatment of Sunnis/Baathists). While no one disputes what administration made this terrible decision, NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS WHO MADE IT!

Dubya blames Bremer. Bremer says he got the orders from Douglas Feith who reported to Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld says it wasn't him, even though Wolfowitz reported directly to him, and Cheney won't talk. How's that for transparency, lol?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#87 Nov 22 2015 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The US took a firm stance on the Libyan revolution and ISIS is there as well. Are we operating under some delusion that Syria would currently be a stable place right now if the US had overthrown Assad three years ago and played the nation building game there (or left it to the locals)?

I guess the other option would have been to support the Ghaddafi and Assad regimes in crushing their respective revolutions. That actually almost certainly would have stopped ISIS but, seeing as how Gbaji was once lamenting how "bad ass" it would have been for Obama to blow Assad up, I'm assuming that wasn't one of the options Gbaji is advocating.

Edited, Nov 22nd 2015 6:42pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Nov 22 2015 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Well I been wasting my time on Facebook arguing with someone on wither the Pilgrim were refugees. He was of the opinion that you can say they are since they didn't flee war, like the ones he now see in the news.

I think I actually got through to him as he just gave me the white flag.

I just may have shown my right to become a Mayflower madam. That is if I was into showing off how important my ancestors are in the history books.

OOPS it seems he thought I may have meant that Syrian Refugees are colonist. I'm hanging up my hat and going to bed.

Edited, Nov 22nd 2015 9:16pm by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#90 Nov 23 2015 at 8:03 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Looks like I missed a little bit.

In other news, Snowden is responsible for Paris attack. He did fail to mention that the people there didn't use encrypted messages ( reg. sms apparently ). In other words, French secret society ****** up.

Also, it is hard not to notice 'subtle' change from war on drugs to war on human trafficking. The annoying thing is, it will probably get better traction than war on drugs ever did.

Edited, Nov 23rd 2015 9:07am by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 23rd 2015 9:07am by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#91 Nov 23 2015 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Also, it is hard not to notice 'subtle' change from war on drugs to war on human trafficking. The annoying thing is, it will probably get better traction than war on drugs ever did.

After a couple decades, we can declare the War on Human Trafficking a failure and move on to saying that we should just legalize child prostitutes and tax them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Nov 23 2015 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
After the success of the war on drugs and war on terror, war on human trafficking should go quite well.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#93 Nov 23 2015 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Have we started taxing terrorism yet?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Nov 23 2015 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Those tanks aren't buying themselves.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#95 Nov 23 2015 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Have we started taxing terrorism yet?


A blood tax, yes.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#96 Nov 23 2015 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The US took a firm stance on the Libyan revolution and ISIS is there as well.


Wait? What? You seriously think that Obama sitting on the fence for 6 months doing nothing constituted a "firm stance"? He only got involved after France and England basically told him they were going to act without him if he didn't man up and grow a pair. He did everything he possibly could to be as uninvolved in that conflict as possible. And yeah, it bit us.

Quote:
Are we operating under some delusion that Syria would currently be a stable place right now if the US had overthrown Assad three years ago and played the nation building game there (or left it to the locals)?


Relative to how it is now? Absolutely. You really think otherwise?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Nov 23 2015 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
You never answered which side of the war we should join...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#98 Nov 23 2015 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Relative to how it is now? Absolutely. You really think otherwise?

Yes, I do. But then, you know, I read the news and stuff sometimes.

That's probably how I know that the Libyan civil war started in late February 2011 (inspired by the success that same month of the protests in Tunisia) and the US started doing missions in around March 20th, 2011. Which is just a liiiiiiiittle bit under "six months" but, again, paying attention to the news instead of making up your own partisan narrative does that to ya.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Nov 23 2015 at 10:43 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Pfft, news. You know how biased that can be.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#100 Nov 24 2015 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
Debalic wrote:
Pfft, news. You know how biased that can be.


Aren't you aware that reality has a liberal bias and must be ignored only for talking points that fit your narrative - truth be damned?

'Merica.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#101 Nov 24 2015 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
For what it's worth, the "Arab Spring" didn't even begin six months before US military involvement in Libya, with the Tunisian protests beginning December 10, 2010. For those who maybe learned New Math in California schools and have trouble with numbers under ten, that would be just under four months.

But when you're busy trying to say "Hurr hurr, France said Obama doesn't have testicles!!", who has time to read a calendar, much less a newspaper?

Edited, Nov 24th 2015 8:05am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 317 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (317)