Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[DWC]

I'm sure coalition forces killed plenty of civilians and some of these instances could be warcrimes, especially during the first couple years as you say, when things were extremely chaotic. The point of contention I have is you seem to be painting a broad brush here and accusing the US military of having bad intentions and soldiers committing warcrimes everywhere just because and overlooking the fact that the militants they were struggling to remove were doing much worse things on a much greater scale.

Intentions are highly debatable.  Things that are clear to me:  Many of the politicians responsible for how things played out had very immoral intentions (personal relationships with oil/defense companies that profited).  Military commanders have pushed policies and protocol directly responsible for horrible tragedies.  And many soldiers are themselves perfectly well-meaning, while others are complete psychopaths.

The original point of the discussion was just how much the U.S. is or isn't responsible for the terrorism they're fighting today, and whether or not the U.S. can actually claim any moral high ground, in either method or motivation, as compared to the terrorists it's fighting.

Eh, fair enough, but insurgents are not necessarily terrorists. The Taliban poses basically zero threat to the west, it's just a major hindrance to stabilizing the country so it isn't some lawless backwater again where anybody who actually is a threat can hide out in. This way, there isn't another 9-11 type attack from a group chilling out there and the USA has to go invade them again. That's the official stance, basically.

Anyways, I've never been convinced about the whole 'war-for-oil' thing. The USA imported more oil from Iraq before the invasion then they do now and all that oil is owned by the Iraqi government and most of the contracts went to non-American companies. If it was for oil they did a really shitty job at exploiting it and I've said my piece about the defense industry.

Politicians are naturally kinda corrupt. They are all rich, powerful successful people and rich, powerful people make friends with other rich powerful people like anybody else in a socioeconomic group. So they are all networked, but I doubt they are like "Hey George go start a war so I can sell some armored trucks" if they were, they'd pick a better way of going about it, like just getting kick-backs to buy up billions in overpriced, no-bid widgets, never using them and then declaring them obsolete and dumping it all into the ocean, rinse and repeat, like the military industrial complex does anyways.

[misko27]

I've also decided politicians that both polarized parties hate is a good man in my book.


I mean seriously, you guys are as polarized as the die-hard tea-partiers. You wonder why nothing gets done! We've literally had a argument for many many pages between people nominally on the same side.


People I support from now on are people willing to actually do things. I still prefer democrats, but I prefer moderate republicans who get things done and compromise to democrats or split congresses that do nothing.


That is to say, I prefer a effective government I disagree with on some issues to one that I agree on everything with that does nothing at all. Which is to say, a democracy over petty feuding idiots.


Come at me bros, You just got out democracied. BRING IT ON BITCHES.

[Owlbread]

Eh, fair enough, but insurgents are not necessarily terrorists. The Taliban poses basically zero threat to the west, it's just a major hindrance to stabilizing the country so it isn't some lawless backwater again where anybody who actually is a threat can hide out in. This way, there isn't another 9-11 type attack from a group chilling out there and the USA has to go invade them again. That's the official stance, basically.

Anyways, I've never been convinced about the whole 'war-for-oil' thing. The USA imported more oil from Iraq before the invasion then they do now and all that oil is owned by the Iraqi government and most of the contracts went to non-American companies. If it was for oil they did a really shitty job at exploiting it and I've said my piece about the defense industry.

Politicians are naturally kinda corrupt. They are all rich, powerful successful people and rich, powerful people make friends with other rich powerful people like anybody else in a socioeconomic group. So they are all networked, but I doubt they are like "Hey George go start a war so I can sell some armored trucks" if they were, they'd pick a better way of going about it, like just getting kick-backs to buy up billions in overpriced, no-bid widgets, never using them and then declaring them obsolete and dumping it all into the ocean, rinse and repeat, like the military industrial complex does anyways.

Politicians are rich, powerful, successful people mostly in the USA. In the UK it's quite a different situation.

Also, I would suggest taking a look at Craig Murray's speech that I posted in the thread two pages ago if you want a bit more convincing on the "war for oil" subject:

In order to understand the conflicts in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Middle East as a whole, along with modern Western foreign policy and realpolitik, I would recommend listening to Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan. He wraps up the whole thing very well. Starts getting really interesting at 0:29:00. A Taliban delegation even went to the USA to discuss protection for the trans-Afghan pipeline with UNICAL. At the time George Bush Sr. was on the UNICAL board, and the guy coordinating the talks with the Taliban was Hamid Karzai. That was all in something like 1997.

Behold

[GlyphGryph]

If you think supporting the politician that no one likes is going to get you that, well... I think you're shit out of luck.

I also prefer an effective government.

I mean seriously, you guys are as polarized as the die-hard tea-partiers. You wonder why nothing gets done! We've literally had a argument for many many pages between people nominally on the same side.

Seriously? For real? I don't give a shit whether or not someone is on my "side". The very concept of having a "side" is asinine. If someone is wrong, if someone is doing something that is going to be bad for this country, then it doesn't matter whether or not they are on my side, I am going to argue against them. This politics of "I'm going to support someone because I dislike the other guy, and now that they're on my side I'm going to agree with anything they say" is exactly how we wound up with this sort of polarizing environment.

Yes, like you, I'd be more than happy to vote for a moderate Republican (and have) who can get things done and act in the best interest of the people.

[Nadaka]

I would be happy to vote for a republican, if it were not for the fact that the bulk of the republican platform is a shameful disgrace and harmful for America and its people.

The democratic and Libertarian platforms have at least a few redeeming qualities, even if the economic puritanism of the libertarian platform renders them completely unsuitable for the national level of government.

[Owlbread]

Interesting wee bit here about JFK's Nazi sympathies: Behold

[FearfulJesuit]

Incidentally,

However, partly because of criticism of the referedum's process, President Barack Obama stated in April 2013 that he will seek $2.5 million to hold another one, this time the first Puerto Rican status referendum to be financed by the Federal government.

There's been little news of Puerto Rico recently, and this has slipped passed us.

[Owlbread]

I heard about that about a month ago. It's a good thing I think; that referendum they had just wasn't enough to determine a sufficient democratic mandate for statehood. Personally I think they should be independent along with Guam and Hawaii and all the rest but it's their democratic right to choose. It'll be interesting to see how America is affected by a Spanish speaking island being absorbed; the mandate for greater Spanish teaching will increase.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Personally I think they should be independent along with Guam and Hawaii and all the rest but it's their democratic right to choose.

You want Hawaii to be independent?

It'll be interesting to see how America is affected by a Spanish speaking island being absorbed; the mandate for greater Spanish teaching will increase.

No it won't. Puerto Rico has both Spanish and English as official languages already. The rest of the US has no significant need for official Spanish even with immigration.

[FearfulJesuit]

It's worth noting that the United States has no official language.

(I just tried to google representative allotments for the US if Puerto Rico were added. I was interested to discover here, if you feel like a trip down a forgotten and useless bit of history, that there's more than one way to apportion representatives, and the question is not at all as easy as it might sound!)

Here is an official report on what would happen if Puerto Rico gains statehood and the representative number stays at 435 (which seems likely). Under this proposal, from the 2010 census results, California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas and Washington all lose a representative, while PR gains five. I don't know what would happen using the 2020 projected results...

[misko27]

I heard about that about a month ago. It's a good thing I think; that referendum they had just wasn't enough to determine a sufficient democratic mandate for statehood. Personally I think they should be independent along with Guam and Hawaii and all the rest but it's their democratic right to choose. It'll be interesting to see how America is affected by a Spanish speaking island being absorbed; the mandate for greater Spanish teaching will increase.

Owlbread, Keep in mind that just because you would like for them to be independent, doesn't mean they want to.


Regarding Puerto Rico, I simply would find it cool. And as for Spanish language, well, I don't know. We'd have to wait and see, but my gut tells me they'd likely be more assimilated.

[FearfulJesuit]

Puerto Rico isn't going to become independent anytime soon- it's against Puerto Ricans' interest to vote for independence. Being a commonwealth has its problems- disenfranchisement, mostly- but an independent Puerto Rico would have the same problems as an independent Mississippi or West Virginia- it has little high-level economic activity of its own, and its (for Latin America; by national standards it's a basket case) high standard of living is kept afloat by checks from the mainland's taxpayers. If it declares independence, that goes, its economy will implode. PR has a fairly well-educated populace, so it would end up one of the better off Latin American states, but the economic loss wouldn't be worth it.

Now, once it does become a state, if it does, that could change. It's much poorer than even a state like Mississippi or Alabama, and the state legislature may well decide that the best choice for PR is to put heavy investment into education and try to make San Juan a high-tech city. But I don't think that's possible...Puerto Ricans speak Spanish, not English, which puts them at a disadvantage nationally; and Puerto Rico is far away from the American mainland. It may become a manufacturing hub (I was wrong, and Wiki corrected me): there's a large manufacturing presence. The problem is that Puerto Rico isn't really American, and never was- it's Latin American. The accidents of political ownership aside, its language, economy, culture, etc. all merit being grouped with Spanish America, not with the Anglophone north. There isn't anything wrong with that, but Puerto Rico will be the odd state out (even in comparison to somewhere like New Mexico) for a long time. It could become a second Florida, a warm place for Northeastern retirees to spend their golden years.

But for all that, I could be wrong; major areas of the Southwest are virtually bilingual. We shall see.

I do kind of wonder whether the introduction of PR to the Union might help trigger a wider political realignment. Puerto Ricans, as I said, are Latin Americans...and Latin American politics are not American politics.

[Loud Whispers]

And then Obama cried 'terrorism.'

And the internet died. In Amurrica.

[Owlbread]

Spoiler: Small independence rant, spoilered so as not to divert from the more important topic of Obama's internet censorship (click to show/hide)

Owlbread, Keep in mind that just because you would like for them to be independent, doesn't mean they want to.

Thank you for reminding me of something I already know and actually referred to in my original post. Cheers.

Personally I think they should be independent along with Guam and Hawaii and all the rest but it's their democratic right to choose.

You want Hawaii to be independent?

I'm going to be sucked into something unpleasant here (I always feel a bit strange fighting in other people's independence debates) but I'm just going to answer your question; Yes, I do.

No it won't. Puerto Rico has both Spanish and English as official languages already. The rest of the US has no significant need for official Spanish even with immigration.

It's got English as an official language but 81.5% speak English "less than very well".  Assimilation's got a hell of a long way to go yet. Ultimately I think Puerto Rico should become an independent country, but as FearfulJesuit has already stated their economy isn't strong enough right now. I think they should remain as a Commonwealth (though I'd probably vote for independence if I could anyway as a political statement) until their economy develops sufficiently. Statehood effectively removes any possibility of independence, given that the USA is an unbreakable Union of unbreakable states.

An interesting bit from Wikipedia, originally sourced to this article.

5.5% of the Puerto Rican population actually voted for independence in 2012, but -

this may possibly be due to the fact that the independence movement in Puerto Rico have been subject to the "Cointelpro program", project conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveying, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations and the "Carpetas program", a massive collection of information gathered by the island's police on so called "political subversives."

I'm very tired of politicians across the world trying to crack down on domestic terrorism by trying to control the internet. If someone wants to commit themselves to a violent ideology and learn how to kill without leaving their home, they can order a sodding book. Why does the internet have to be censored when physical literature will provide you with most things that you need?

[misko27]

And then Obama cried 'terrorism.'

And the internet died. In Amurrica.

Argument inspiring, Thy name is Loud Whispers!


And the people then did rejoice, before bearing down upon each other like so many wolves. And there was much slaughter. And Loud Whispers saw that it was Good.