04-23-2015 05:51 PM
247 ... 34567 ...
tools
  1. anon8126715's Avatar
    You know what I'd be happy with, a President who stops drawing lines for everyone to cross and do nothing about. Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, ect. It makes us look like a joke. A President who holds press conferences to outline everything we aren't going to do. How weak do you want someone to make us look? I think we can all agree that if you got into a confrontation with someone, telling them you aren't going to punch them in the face, the stomach, and no choke holds while using only your left hand would be a bad strategy.

    Lets start there, with the tone of our foreign policy.
    Who's confronted us directly, exactly? That's the problem with our last administration and some others in the past. You equate it to some sort of street fight. The situation is much more involved than that and a reaction of violence isn't the answer that it once was.

    I'm perfectly and unequivocally fine with not being the world's police for a change. All that tends to happen is the U.S. gets burdened with a lot of debt (that we owe to China, btw) that we never recover from the country that we "aid". If other 1st world countries feel an impending threat, where is their course of action? Why aren't they in panic mode? Oh right, we've already demonstrated that we'll play "World Janitors" and clean up someone else's mess.
    A895 likes this.
    08-29-2014 10:46 AM
  2. aokusman's Avatar
    What's our business in ukraine? When we invaded Iraq did Russia call for sanctions on us? Let the EU deal with it, Its right next to them. We get mad when another country does the exact same thing that we have done in the past. We are not the policeman of the world, to be that you would have to be impartial.
    chestvrg and palandri like this.
    08-29-2014 10:51 AM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    What's our business in ukraine? When we invaded Iraq did Russia call for sanctions on us? Let the EU deal with it, Its right next to them. We get mad when another country does the exact same thing that we have done in the past. We are not the policeman of the world, to be that you would have to be impartial.
    Ukraine (and Russia)-team-america-world-police-1168-16x9-large.jpg
    palandri likes this.
    08-29-2014 11:16 AM
  4. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You know what I'd be happy with, a President who stops drawing lines for everyone to cross and do nothing about. Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, ect. It makes us look like a joke. A President who holds press conferences to outline everything we aren't going to do. How weak do you want someone to make us look? I think we can all agree that if you got into a confrontation with someone, telling them you aren't going to punch them in the face, the stomach, and no choke holds while using only your left hand would be a bad strategy.

    Lets start there, with the tone of our foreign policy. We just watched our Commander in Chief address the nation on TV and proclaim we have no strategy for ISIS. THEN WHY THE HELL DO YOU SAY ANYTHING. STFU until you do. It's like romper room in the security meetings. Is he sitting there planning for the location of his library when he gets out and his next round of golf?
    I don't find myself agreeing with you often (ever?), but on the press conference and action/inaction thing you are spot on.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Scott7217 likes this.
    08-29-2014 01:28 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    But how many people do you think have died SINCE we ousted Saddam?
    Violent deaths following the 2003 invasion of Iraq

    Documented civilian deaths from violence: 128,140 – 143,443

    Total violent deaths including combatants: 195,000

    Source: Iraq Body Count (website link here)


    For comparison, here are the numbers for World War II:

    Battle deaths:15,000,000

    Civilian deaths: 45,000,000

    Source: The National WWII Museum (website link here)
    08-29-2014 04:59 PM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    Violent deaths following the 2003 invasion of Iraq

    Documented civilian deaths from violence: 128,140 – 143,443

    Total violent deaths including combatants: 195,000

    Source: Iraq Body Count (website link here)


    For comparison, here are the numbers for World War II:

    Battle deaths:15,000,000

    Civilian deaths: 45,000,000

    Source: The National WWII Museum (website link here)

    You do realize that the WWII topic came up because SteveISU claims that we need to intervene in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine regardless of cost because that wasn't a factor when we went into WWII right? And I replied that we didn't react to WWII as quickly as he thinks, and then I mentioned that there was a lot of loss of life AFTER we ousted Saddam and destabilized the region.

    Thus, the reason I'm not sure I quite understand your post. Steve believes our call to action in WWII was done regardless of how much it would cost us, but I mentioned that we didn't exactly jump into action at the drop of a hat.
    msndrstood and A895 like this.
    08-29-2014 07:27 PM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    Ukraine crisis: NATO to create 'high-readiness force' - CNN.com

    Anyone else think NATO or the European community would've acted if the U.S. had gone all "Global Sheriff" in Ukraine? It's similar to what's taking place in Iraq. Look at the Iraqi forces that were quick to retreat and abandon the U.S. weaponry given to them so they could now be used against them by ISIS. If this force wasn't so quick to abandon its post thinking the U.S. would be right around the corner to save them, they might not be where they are now.

    When we as a country decide to be the world's crutch, we're just becoming enablers. Freedom doesn't come out of a vending machine nor is it dropped out of an airplane. It's something that comes with great sacrifice. It's time for other countries to stop waiting for the U.S. to commit to sacrifices that these other countries aren't willing to make. A country that's ok with outsourcing sacrifices to maintain its freedom doesn't deserve to be free.
    GadgetGator, A895 and msndrstood like this.
    09-01-2014 03:59 PM
  8. cnotes2019's Avatar
    The point of the matter is nothing will succeed for the long term if we don't stop going places at all and more specifically going places for our own 'secret' agenda. Long term change must come from the hands of that country in turmoil and those around it. Not till it reaches 'global chaos' should we act directly. Supplying weapons etc is another story we need to police our own borders better...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    09-01-2014 04:16 PM
  9. SteveISU's Avatar
    I don't find myself agreeing with you often (ever?), but on the press conference and action/inaction thing you are spot on.

    Posted via Android Central App
    I'll win ya over. j/k
    09-02-2014 04:57 PM
  10. SteveISU's Avatar
    The point of the matter is nothing will succeed for the long term if we don't stop going places at all and more specifically going places for our own 'secret' agenda. Long term change must come from the hands of that country in turmoil and those around it. Not till it reaches 'global chaos' should we act directly. Supplying weapons etc is another story we need to police our own borders better...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    You do understand that there are instances where a group of people can't defend themselves, that they face dire consequences unless someone steps in on their behalf. Iraq rolling into Kuwait would be one example of that. If you think life as the world police is such a horrible thing, consider life as the passive dog with it's tail between it's legs and someone like Russia or China calling the shots on the global stage.

    You can wait for the ish to hit the fan and then react, or you can use your powers of strength and persuasion to deter "global chaos" before it even occurs. We didn't wait for Russia to stick nukes in Cuba and then say "now what". Had Kennedy listened to some who wanted to give the USSR and Cuba a "stern" warning (ala The Obama Doctrine), we'd be sitting here with USSR nukes on our door step.
    09-02-2014 05:13 PM
  11. cnotes2019's Avatar
    You do understand that there are instances where a group of people can't defend themselves, that they face dire consequences unless someone steps in on their behalf. Iraq rolling into Kuwait would be one example of that. If you think life as the world police is such a horrible thing, consider life as the passive dog with it's tail between it's legs and someone like Russia or China calling the shots on the global stage.

    You can wait for the ish to hit the fan and then react, or you can use your powers of strength and persuasion to deter "global chaos" before it even occurs. We didn't wait for Russia to stick nukes in Cuba and then say "now what". Had Kennedy listened to some who wanted to give the USSR and Cuba a "stern" warning (ala The Obama Doctrine), we'd be sitting here with USSR nukes on our door step.
    This is my point. If a country can't resolve it's own problems it's up to neighboring countries to come to their defense first and foremost. We as a power country can aid in Many ways without sending in boots. And Cuba is again my point seeing how Cuba is on our doorsteps....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    A895 likes this.
    09-02-2014 05:16 PM
  12. anon8126715's Avatar
    You do understand that there are instances where a group of people can't defend themselves, that they face dire consequences unless someone steps in on their behalf. Iraq rolling into Kuwait would be one example of that. If you think life as the world police is such a horrible thing, consider life as the passive dog with it's tail between it's legs and someone like Russia or China calling the shots on the global stage.

    You can wait for the ish to hit the fan and then react, or you can use your powers of strength and persuasion to deter "global chaos" before it even occurs. We didn't wait for Russia to stick nukes in Cuba and then say "now what". Had Kennedy listened to some who wanted to give the USSR and Cuba a "stern" warning (ala The Obama Doctrine), we'd be sitting here with USSR nukes on our door step.
    I'm just quoting because you actually gave credit to a Democratic president.....
    GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    09-02-2014 06:43 PM
  13. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I'm just quoting because you actually gave credit to a Democratic president.....
    To use his quote....we'll win him over. LOL

    Posted via Android Central App
    A895 and msndrstood like this.
    09-02-2014 11:54 PM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Thus, the reason I'm not sure I quite understand your post. Steve believes our call to action in WWII was done regardless of how much it would cost us, but I mentioned that we didn't exactly jump into action at the drop of a hat.
    You say that we didn't jump into action at the drop of a hat. However, you haven't denied that we did act eventually.

    World War II is a good example of what happens when you delay a response. Many more people die. If there had been earlier intervention, a lot of people could have been saved.

    Perhaps some people want to see a higher body count first before lifting a finger.
    09-03-2014 04:38 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    You say that we didn't jump into action at the drop of a hat. However, you haven't denied that we did act eventually.

    World War II is a good example of what happens when you delay a response. Many more people die. If there had been earlier intervention, a lot of people could have been saved.

    Perhaps some people want to see a higher body count first before lifting a finger.
    You have to realize that the speed at which news traveled back then is different than how fast it travels now. We get accounts of what happened practically minutes after something happened (Unless you're talking about the Ferguson PD of course). Maybe they should've done a better job of following Europe on their Twitter account.

    And then you have to also understand that it wasn't that long ago before the 1st World War was fought. You don't just jump right back into a war like it's some sort of weekend bar brawl.

    And finally, and most important for everyone to understand this (and by "everyone", I mean mostly the right wing), if the American people were blood thirsty for more fighting, don't you think Romney would've won in 2012? The American people knew that he would have no problem sending soldiers off to die to help the rich get richer, to "spread capitalism". The right wing need to understand that they lost in 2012. The American people flat out rejected their idea of dismantling the ACA, of their war mongering, of their "corporations are people" ideology. Thus, I have no problems with a President doing what he was voted into office for.
    A895, GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    09-04-2014 02:07 AM
  16. SteveISU's Avatar
    I'm just quoting because you actually gave credit to a Democratic president.....
    A democratic president that if he held his beliefs today would be denounced by the democratic party, go look at his presidency. He was anti-communism, had a stern religious devotion (he gave faith-based speeches, the kind today that the left would view as "extreme"), his advocacy for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, across the board tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility ("Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country). Those are far from today's democrat party principles. If that was the democratic platform, they'd have my eyes and ears.
    09-04-2014 10:26 AM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    This is my point. If a country can't resolve it's own problems it's up to neighboring countries to come to their defense first and foremost. We as a power country can aid in Many ways without sending in boots. And Cuba is again my point seeing how Cuba is on our doorsteps....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Which one of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan would come to Israels defense if Iran attacked?

    It is naive to think airstrikes and drones can solve our problems, any military commander will tell you there is no substitute for boots on the ground. ISIS is growing, their leader when released in 2011 walked out and said, "I'll see you in NY". Now you can sit with your thumb up your **** and wait for another building to come down or we can confront them over there on their "turf".

    In all honesty, I would fear for our GI's over there because this commander-in-chief is so methodical and passive he's likely to get our men and women killed over there. He will be visualizing when he can "cut and run" and announce that to the entire world ("We will be out by X date") without focusing on a winning strategy.
    09-04-2014 10:31 AM
  18. A895's Avatar
    Which one of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan would come to Israels defense if Iran attacked?

    It is naive to think airstrikes and drones can solve our problems, any military commander will tell you there is no substitute for boots on the ground. ISIS is growing, their leader when released in 2011 walked out and said, "I'll see you in NY". Now you can sit with your thumb up your **** and wait for another building to come down or we can confront them over there on their "turf".

    In all honesty, I would fear for our GI's over there because this commander-in-chief is so methodical and passive he's likely to get our men and women killed over there. He will be visualizing when he can "cut and run" and announce that to the entire world ("We will be out by X date") without focusing on a winning strategy.
    I refuse to believe that we NEED soldiers over there. That is last thing we should be doing. We have things to do here. ISIS as of now pose no threat to the U.S. but if they pose any threat to our national security I am not against a few attacks by drone to sabotage any of their plans or expansion.
    09-04-2014 12:10 PM
  19. SteveISU's Avatar
    I refuse to believe that we NEED soldiers over there. That is last thing we should be doing. We have things to do here. ISIS as of now pose no threat to the U.S. but if they pose any threat to our national security I am not against a few attacks by drone to sabotage any of their plans or expansion.

    Right in line with Obama.
    09-04-2014 12:14 PM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    A democratic president that if he held his beliefs today would be denounced by the democratic party, go look at his presidency. He was anti-communism, had a stern religious devotion (he gave faith-based speeches, the kind today that the left would view as "extreme"), his advocacy for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, across the board tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility ("Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country). Those are far from today's democrat party principles. If that was the democratic platform, they'd have my eyes and ears.
    What's funny is that people say the same thing about Reagan. Do you want to know what's even funnier? People say that Obama is to the right of Reagan.

    In reference to Kennedy's presidency, the more I learned in history, the more I heard history teachers say that his presidency was cut too short to know if he would've been as great a President. If you think about it, he only had what amounted to 2 years in office, hardly enough to make as big an impact as history would have you believe. But, I think the Democrats are perfectly fine building up the Kennedy aura just as Republicans have built Reagan up to be some sort of uber-Republican. I just can't wait to see how the right will try to spin GWB's presidency, while making Obama's presidency seem like a train wreck on top of a plane crash, on top of a missile explosion. It's a shame the left doesn't have as powerful a marketing group as the right does.
    A895 likes this.
    09-04-2014 12:38 PM
  21. A895's Avatar
    Right in line with Obama.
    Then that makes him a very sensible leader then.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    09-04-2014 01:28 PM
  22. SteveISU's Avatar
    What's funny is that people say the same thing about Reagan. Do you want to know what's even funnier? People say that Obama is to the right of Reagan.

    In reference to Kennedy's presidency, the more I learned in history, the more I heard history teachers say that his presidency was cut too short to know if he would've been as great a President. If you think about it, he only had what amounted to 2 years in office, hardly enough to make as big an impact as history would have you believe. But, I think the Democrats are perfectly fine building up the Kennedy aura just as Republicans have built Reagan up to be some sort of uber-Republican. I just can't wait to see how the right will try to spin GWB's presidency, while making Obama's presidency seem like a train wreck on top of a plane crash, on top of a missile explosion. It's a shame the left doesn't have as powerful a marketing group as the right does.
    They have the most powerful one, It's called the mainstream media. If not for them the man would have never been elected.

    Who say's Obama is right of Reagan? I'd love to read that crackpots thesis.
    09-04-2014 02:29 PM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    They have the most powerful one, It's called the mainstream media. If not for them the man would have never been elected.

    Who say's Obama is right of Reagan? I'd love to read that crackpots thesis.
    Ummm, yeah the rest of the world calls them "Facts", not "crackpot thesis'"....


    From an article on the Huffington Post. Who is More Conservative: Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama? | Cenk Uygur Sure you'll say it's a liberal bastion, but from their quote, let me know what you see that isn't right......

    Ronald Reagan:

    -Gave Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants
    -Negotiated with Terrorists (Traded Arms for Hostages with Iran)
    -Raised Taxes on a Large Scale Four Times (After Initially Lowering Them)
    -Negotiated with the "Evil Empire" without Pre-conditions
    -Made a Decision to "Cut and Run" From Lebanon After Our Troops Were Attacked

    Barack Obama:

    -Escalated the Afghanistan War (Added 30,000 More Troops)
    -Has Ordered Drone Strikes (Assassinations) on US Citizens Outside the Country
    -Gave Drug Companies Near Monopoly Power by Barring Imports, Extending Patents and Not Allowing the Government to Negotiate Better Prices
    -Funneled Billions into the Biggest Banks in the Country After They Crashed the Economy
    -Stacked Deficit Commission with Fiscal Conservatives
    -Lowered Taxes Significantly (Stimulus Bill)
    -Ordered Increased Offshore Drilling Before BP Spill
    A895 likes this.
    09-04-2014 02:46 PM
  24. A895's Avatar
    Ummm, yeah the rest of the world calls them "Facts", not "crackpot thesis'"....


    From an article on the Huffington Post. Who is More Conservative: Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?*|*Cenk Uygur Sure you'll say it's a liberal bastion, but from their quote, let me know what you see that isn't right......
    Ooo, I want to see his response to this one.
    09-04-2014 03:23 PM
  25. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Right in line with Obama.
    No...right in line with reality.

    And what's with the "he was anti-communist" bit. Do you really think that today's democrats are communist? I assure you I am NOT. And frankly find the suggestion offensive.

    Posted via Android Central App
    A895 likes this.
    09-04-2014 05:14 PM
247 ... 34567 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Problem with hornyworm.apk and pop-up ads on my android?
    By ryan mcgovern in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 08:22 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-07-2014, 03:23 PM
  3. JUMP, the G3 and the Nexus line
    By LeoRex in forum Google Nexus 5
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 11:16 PM
  4. Problem with hornyworm.apk and pop-up ads on my android?
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 10:12 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 07:57 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD