donald trump 4 prez - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: can he do it?
yes 23 52.27%
yea 21 47.73%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-22-2015, 08:33 AM   #311 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E5I5O View Post
Vietnam was started by a Texan president, who was a Democrat, but had conservative views (LBJ). And the second Iraq war, like the first was started by a Republican, both were named Bush. And, no, the Democrats very much, at least, walk the walk of peace. I'd rather have a Democrat in office than a Republican, because a Republican is always acting like the insecure little kid on the playground, always looking for a fight to prove himself.
Kennedy was involved in Vietnam way before LBJ, and lol @ The Great Society being conservative.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 09:54 AM   #312 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E5I5O View Post
Vietnam was started by a Texan president, who was a Democrat, but had conservative views (LBJ). And the second Iraq war, like the first was started by a Republican, both were named Bush. And, no, the Democrats very much, at least, walk the walk of peace. I'd rather have a Democrat in office than a Republican, because a Republican is always acting like the insecure little kid on the playground, always looking for a fight to prove himself.
once again, i think you're cherry picking.

i never said republicans aren't pro-war btw. but the democratic congress voted in favor of the iraq war, despite widespread domestic and international protests. it could be that they were just naive enough to believe bush & co.

or it could be that they knew that opposing the war in the midst of a post-9/11 political climate where many americans were whipped into a nationalist frenzy could hurt their own political careers.

or it could be that they knew iraq was a bad idea but gave bush the go ahead anyways in order to give themselves some political leverage in the next elections, after the war went sour.

whatever their reasoning, many democrats still voted for it.

to speak more recently..

obama's foreign policy has been largely criticized by progressive for more or less the entire duration of his presidency. i know this because i have left-leaning sympathies and for a while considered myself a hardcore progressive, watching left-leaning news on the internet such as the young turks or al jazeera, or reading glenn greenwald/noam chomsky/etc. try looking to any of those media sources rather than watching msnbc to see how unfavorably obama's approach to foreign policy has fared with hard-line liberals and progressives.

for one thing his heavy use of drone strikes, in some cases in countries that we aren't even at war with, has been heavily criticized. the main difference between obama and bush in that regard is that obama didn't spend as much time constructing a false narrative to make the american public rally behind these strikes. he just simply tried to keep them as quiet as possible.

obama's libya adventure was another example of a war that ultimately was about exerting american/nato influence abroad and helping to get rid of a long time enemy, while doing it all under the banner of spreading democracy and preventing a dictator from brutally slaughtering his own people. the end result was somewhat similar to iraq... chaos, destabilization, ethnic cleansing and militant/terror groups inadvertently gaining regional power and influence. it was also an adventure undertaken without widespread congressional support, unlike iraq.

obama's one redeeming feature in libya was that he was smart enough not to commit american ground forces in a long term battle and to act only with international support. and to his credit the situation in libya was escalating and rebels on the ground there were asking for assistance. but that doesn't make it a smart move, and it doesn't make it peaceful.

and even with all that, obama is less war-like than our next democratic president, hillary clinton. she has criticized him for being too soft in the past, such as for not doing more to help the syrian rebels early on.

Quote:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton drew a foreign policy line between herself and President Obama in an interview this week, saying the President should have assisted Syrian rebels early in the bloody three-year conflict there, and issuing a dig at his Administration’s minimalist doctrine.

The Obama Administration’s wariness about assisting rebels out of fear that aid would fall into the hands of extremists was misguided and ineffectual, Clinton said in an interview with the Atlantic, and allowed for the rise of Islamic extremists who are now threatening to take over wide swaths of Iraq.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.
Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Aid Syrian Rebels Led to Rise of ISIS

in other words.. in clinton's view, we should have been a more active player in the civil war in syria, which created the environment for the rise of al-nusra, a former ally of isis. to some extent isis has actually benefited directly from the assistance to syrian rebels, iirc.

but her stance is we should've given even more assistance early on, in order to make sure that the 'secular' or 'moderate' camps of the resistance were strong enough and influential enough to undermine the islamic militant camps of the syrian resistance.

hell, she might even be right. but one alarming aspect is that a lot of the al-nusra militants actually started out as moderates. it could be that because al-nsura was a more effective fighting force, people flocked to them out of a desire to take down assad.

but it could also be that the environment created by the civil war.. one of endless terror and bloodshed, mixed with people seeking refuge in religion... makes for a fertile breeding ground for new terrorist recruits.
John Wilkes Booth is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 10:57 AM   #313 (permalink)
Brain Licker
 
Xurtio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,083
Default

Well, imo, a lot of the super religious terrorist groups are a social over correction to the decades of secular rebellion and rule we had there in the last century. Sadam is a prime example. A lot of them were funded and promoted by outside (often Western) interests. Because a lot of greedy evil people were at the helm, it gave secularity a bad name in the middle east. Once the anti-west sentiment grew, it provided a hot propaganda topic for terrorist groups to campaign on.
__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉
Xurtio is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 11:01 AM   #314 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,235
Default

i would say there is some merit to that.. and i would say that trend goes back even further to the days of european colonialism, where states were largely coopted by western influence, and the last seemingly-authentic sense of a cultural identity was to be found in the mosques
John Wilkes Booth is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 12:09 PM   #315 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
once again, i think you're cherry picking.
Hardly

Quote:
i never said republicans aren't pro-war btw. but the democratic congress voted in favor of the iraq war, despite widespread domestic and international protests. it could be that they were just naive enough to believe bush & co.
Yeah, the country had just been attacked. No one would vote against war at the time. That's kind of a given.

Quote:
or it could be that they knew that opposing the war in the midst of a post-9/11 political climate where many americans were whipped into a nationalist frenzy could hurt their own political careers.
Hardly

Quote:
or it could be that they knew iraq was a bad idea but gave bush the go ahead anyways in order to give themselves some political leverage in the next elections, after the war went sour.
Nah

Quote:
whatever their reasoning, many democrats still voted for it.
they had to, everyone did, for the right reasons.. we had just been attacked... the world is not like yours, it's not all black and white as you want it to be. It makes it simple for you, but for the rest of the world, we need hard questions to be answered, despite the pain it may cause your kind...

Quote:
to speak more recently..

obama's foreign policy has been largely criticized by progressive for more or less the entire duration of his presidency. i know this because i have left-leaning sympathies and for a while considered myself a hardcore progressive, watching left-leaning news on the internet such as the young turks or al jazeera, or reading glenn greenwald/noam chomsky/etc. try looking to any of those media sources rather than watching msnbc to see how unfavorably obama's approach to foreign policy has fared with hard-line liberals and progressives.
I don't watch nbc, I'm not stupid

Quote:
for one thing his heavy use of drone strikes, in some cases in countries that we aren't even at war with, has been heavily criticized. the main difference between obama and bush in that regard is that obama didn't spend as much time constructing a false narrative to make the american public rally behind these strikes. he just simply tried to keep them as quiet as possible.
I agree with you there, you can't make war a quiet thing, you've got to go all out and take them out where you see them. Obama has failed miserably in this regard.

Quote:
obama's libya adventure was another example of a war that ultimately was about exerting american/nato influence abroad and helping to get rid of a long time enemy, while doing it all under the banner of spreading democracy and preventing a dictator from brutally slaughtering his own people. the end result was somewhat similar to iraq... chaos, destabilization, ethnic cleansing and militant/terror groups inadvertently gaining regional power and influence. it was also an adventure undertaken without widespread congressional support, unlike iraq.
which your baby bush help to create, primarily helped to created because the bushes started all this

Quote:
obama's one redeeming feature in libya was that he was smart enough not to commit american ground forces in a long term battle and to act only with international support. and to his credit the situation in libya was escalating and rebels on the ground there were asking for assistance. but that doesn't make it a smart move, and it doesn't make it peaceful.
ok, that does it, you're living a world of black and white. My world is not that simple. I actually see in color and three dimensionally. You're lost in a world concocted by your own mind and wants.

Quote:
and even with all that, obama is less war-like than our next democratic president, hillary clinton. she has criticized him for being too soft in the past, such as for not doing more to help the syrian rebels early on.
This is where it stands: if the Obama administration were to go to war, you'd say, "Way too much war!". If they were not to go to war.", you'd say, "They're not warring enough.". You're a Republican. You're prone to double standards as they please you and aid your cause. Dick Cheney has criticized the Obama administration for the deficit through their rule in Washington, but when he was Vice President, he was quoted as saying, "Deficits don't matter".... typical Republican't...
E5I5O is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 12:20 PM   #316 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default

I sense a battle of wits approaching.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 12:22 PM   #317 (permalink)
Ask me how!
 
Oriphiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
I sense a battle of twits approaching.
Fixed.
__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------
Oriphiel is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 12:35 PM   #318 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E5I5O View Post
Hardly



Yeah, the country had just been attacked. No one would vote against war at the time. That's kind of a given.



Hardly



Nah



they had to, everyone did, for the right reasons.. we had just been attacked... the world is not like yours, it's not all black and white as you want it to be. It makes it simple for you, but for the rest of the world, we need hard questions to be answered, despite the pain it may cause your kind...



I don't watch nbc, I'm not stupid



I agree with you there, you can't make war a quiet thing, you've got to go all out and take them out where you see them. Obama has failed miserably in this regard.



which your baby bush help to create, primarily helped to created because the bushes started all this



ok, that does it, you're living a world of black and white. My world is not that simple. I actually see in color and three dimensionally. You're lost in a world concocted by your own mind and wants.



This is where it stands: if the Obama administration were to go to war, you'd say, "Way too much war!". If they were not to go to war.", you'd say, "They're not warring enough.". You're a Republican. You're prone to double standards as they please you and aid your cause. Dick Cheney has criticized the Obama administration for the deficit through their rule in Washington, but when he was Vice President, he was quoted as saying, "Deficits don't matter".... typical Republican't...
lol. well, i tried. go back to iraq with your isis beard.
John Wilkes Booth is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 12:36 PM   #319 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth View Post
lol. well, i tried. go back to iraq with your isis beard.
That's a commie beard you dumbass.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 12:41 PM   #320 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,235
Default

this is 2015 my friend. it's an isis beard.
John Wilkes Booth is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.