GG Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I'll take a pacifist president any day over the war mongering presidents we've had over the last 50 years including Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. None of the countries in any of those wars were any threat to us or our freedom. All we have to show for them is carnage, death, brain scrambled veterans, massive debt, and new enemies. We're making enemies faster than we can kill them. Please enlighten me on a period of this Republic when it wasn't geographically expansionist and always looked at its sphere of influence outside is boarders (for you Tom) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Please enlighten me on a period of this Republic when it wasn't geographically expansionist and always looked at its sphere of influence outside is boarders (for you Tom) I can't of course. But just because we got into the Banana Wars, the Halls of Montezuma, Viet Nam, Iraq I and Iraq II doesn't necessarily mean we gotta get in this one. You know what it means to repeat the same mistakes expecting different results, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I can't of course. But just because we got into the Banana Wars, the Halls of Montezuma, Viet Nam, Iraq I and Iraq II doesn't necessarily mean we gotta get in this one. You know what it means to repeat the same mistakes expecting different results, right? But it's not just the banana wars. It's every conflict that this nation has been involved in since its founding. And history is conclusive that the world is a far better place with an active USA involvement than a passive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 But it's not just the banana wars. It's every conflict that this nation has been involved in since its founding. And history is conclusive that the world is a far better place with an active USA involvement than a passive one. Explain to me how Viet Nam made the world a far better place with an active USA involvement than a passive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Explain to me how Viet Nam made the world a far better place with an active USA involvement than a passive one. Explain to me how a conflict which ended 40 years and 7 Presidents ago, predating the Second Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, is relevant to the modern geopolitical state in which there exists only one true world power? Edited June 5, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Explain to me how Viet Nam made the world a far better place with an active USA involvement than a passive one. Explain to us how Iraq and Syria make the world a far better place with a passive USA involvement than an active one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Explain to me how Viet Nam made the world a far better place with an active USA involvement than a passive one. Which was a greater humanitarian disaster, USA's initial involvement in Vietnam or the hasty exit? Or don't yellow lives matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Yeah we really "took the fight to them" by: - removing a democratically elected leader in Iran - enabling Israel's heinous occupation of an indigenous people - supporting the trillion dollar house of Saud's Wahabi extremism - invading Iraq on false premises - destablizing Syria, and along with that with invading Iraq giving rise to ISIS Thanks for making my point. This all happened under a president that tucked his tail and walked away from Iraq. Keep going with the media talking points and what you have been fed by a leftist mindset. Like you took this off a MSNBC pamphlet or something. This is why I stopped coming on here. DC Tom! Thanks a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Explain to us how Iraq and Syria make the world a far better place with a passive USA involvement than an active one. Out of all the ignorant posts this one takes the cake: those places are a mess because of intervention by the US and her "allies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Explain to me how a conflict which ended 40 years and 7 Presidents ago, predating the Second Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, is relevant to the modern geopolitical state in which there exists only one true world power? Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. There are many similarities. Off the top of my head, here are a few: In a part of the world we don't understand very well You can't tell the difference between the enemy and the "friends" We're told if we don't do it, we will be attacked (we weren't even though we lost). Communism was doing the domino theory by taking over country after country which failed. In this one we want to put a domino (democracy) in and have it spread (didn't happen the first time, not sure why it might this time). It would cost mucho dinero and tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Should I also list the similarities between now and Iraq II? They're pretty much the same. About the same results as well. You may be right. It could be different this time. Are you willing to sign up for the fight? If you're too old, maybe we can get your kid (if you have one) to fight for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. There are many similarities. Off the top of my head, here are a few: In a part of the world we don't understand very well You can't tell the difference between the enemy and the "friends" We're told if we don't do it, we will be attacked (we weren't even though we lost). Communism was doing the domino theory by taking over country after country which failed. In this one we want to put a domino (democracy) in and have it spread (didn't happen the first time, not sure why it might this time). It would cost mucho dinero and tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Should I also list the similarities between now and Iraq II? They're pretty much the same. About the same results as well. You may be right. It could be different this time. Are you willing to sign up for the fight? If you're too old, maybe we can get your kid (if you have one) to fight for us. That doesn't answer the question. If the US doesn't take an active role in the geopolitical scene, which sometimes involves military action, it creates a power vacuum which is quickly filled by bad actors. This is the nature of a world in which there is only one true world power remaining. You not wanting to accept this reality doesn't change it. The world is a better place with active US involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 That doesn't answer the question. If the US doesn't take an active role in the geopolitical scene, which sometimes involves military action, it creates a power vacuum which is quickly filled by bad actors. This is the nature of a world in which there is only one true world power remaining. You not wanting to accept this reality doesn't change it. The world is a better place with active US involvement. who should pay for this expense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) That doesn't answer the question. If the US doesn't take an active role in the geopolitical scene, which sometimes involves military action, it creates a power vacuum which is quickly filled by bad actors. This is the nature of a world in which there is only one true world power remaining. You not wanting to accept this reality doesn't change it. The world is a better place with active US involvement. Your crap superficial theory doesnt stand up against reality. We haven't bombed south america and they seem to be doing ok. The closest we came to involvement in Europe in decades was support for Ukraine "rebels" in their violent overthrow of a democratically elected leader; how's that working out? Our agenda of intervention even went beyond the EU's (e.g. Victoria Nuland's "f@ the EU" comment). And has been demonstrated repeatedly our convoluted history of intervention in Mideast has served no interests other than big oil and defense lobby, Israeli apartheid, and Saudi extremism, and most recently provided conditions for the rise of ISIS. Did you stop to think that maybe our foreign policy makes us the "bad actor"? Edited June 5, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 who should pay for this expense I'll take, "The nation that gets the disproportionate share of the global economy to its population," for $100 Alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I'll take, "The nation that gets the disproportionate share of the global economy to its population," for $100 Alex. you mean we not getting that from out competing everybody with our business smarts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) That doesn't answer the question. If the US doesn't take an active role in the geopolitical scene, which sometimes involves military action, it creates a power vacuum which is quickly filled by bad actors. This is the nature of a world in which there is only one true world power remaining. You not wanting to accept this reality doesn't change it. The world is a better place with active US involvement. So says you. I explained my side, now can you please explain how Viet Nam made the world a better place? I answered yours even though I asked you first. I'm also still awaiting DCTom's explanation of how "process is more important than resutls" and an instance that demonstrates it by way ... Edited June 5, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) So says you. I explained my side, now can you please explain how Viet Nam made the world a better place? I answered yours even though I asked you first. I'm also still awaiting DCTom's explanation of how "process is more important than resutls" and an instance that demonstrates it by way ... No, your point is that America shouldn't act as a moral actor in the geopolitical sphere where it is the sole world power in a post-Cold War, 21st century world "because Vietnam". My point is that Vietnam is irrelevant to the conversation for multiple reasons, and that we shouldn't make the mistake of inaction to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our friends, because you don't like the fact that we became involved in a proxy war against communism 60 years ago. Further, you didn't answer my question at all. You might have answer some question posed somewhere, but it wasn't the one I asked. Edited June 5, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 So says you. I explained my side, now can you please explain how Viet Nam made the world a better place? I answered yours even though I asked you first. I'm also still awaiting DCTom's explanation of how "process is more important than resutls" and an instance that demonstrates it by way ... you don't understand Reddog - the new patriotism is for the average working class American to be willing to under go austerity to pay for a military to fight a Chinese economic threat that wouldn't exist if our corporate masters hadn't moved our jobs and technology over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Further, you didn't answer my question at all. You might have answer some question posed somewhere, but it wasn't the one I asked. You just don't like may answer. You asked me how Viet Nam relates. I told you it relates because it's very similar to the ISIS deal (except Viet Nam was about global communism whereas this one is global jihadism). Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it. That's how it relates IMHO. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, .... can't get fooled again. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean I didn't answer it. If you still think I didn't, please expand it a little to let me know what you're looking for. Who says we have to be the world's police person anyway? Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Bell Helicopter, among others and the politicians they've bought. McCain and his pocket book love it. You didn't answer my question if you are going to sign up for the fight since it's so damned important ... Edited June 5, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I'm also still awaiting DCTom's explanation of how "process is more important than resutls" and an instance that demonstrates it by way ... Keep waiting, mutton-head. That you need something so self-evident explained is conclusive proof that you wouldn't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts