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

[BurnedToast]

I believe powerful countries have a duty to intervene within reason when mass executions are observed in foreign lands. To do anything less is to be complicit. What they don't have a right to do is occupy another country for years.

How does this work?

Group "A" in the republic of elbonia is mass murdering group "B". We drive in, shoot a whole bunch of group "A" to stop them, and then we just leave?

All that happens is group "B" starts murdering the now weakened group "A". It's almost inevitable, it's happened time and time again,  and it's pretty much a certain outcome.

So, then we shoot group "B" so that group "A" can start the killing again? Do we just pop in every few years to shoot people till everyone is dead, and/or they all hate us more then they hate each other? How is that better?

[Duuvian]

That's not necessarily what happens. However in your argument Group A is already mass murdering group B. Your argument argues in favor of allowing that to happen therefore you are complicit.

[Sheb]

You beat back group A until they're not actively massacring B anymore, then force them to reach a compromise. Then you end up with a clusterfuck ike Bosnia, but at least they're not actively murdering each others anymore.

[aenri]

The best course of action would be let them kill themselves to their hearts content. On the one side you have retarded unpopular islamic governement and on the other side retarded islamic fanatics. If one group will win, they will probably destroy the opposition and bring stability to country. If the "right" group wins, it will be even better for USA!
USA should really stop playing hypocritical world policeman. Maybe someone like Iran could help Iraq Shi'a government.

[Sergarr]

Two of Steve Stockman's staff resigned, then donated to his campaign the next day, then got rehired the day after. Here's his explanation of how this was all totally not illegal:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/steve-stockman-congressional-ethics

"At first blush I was pleased with their actions," Stockman wrote in his letter to OCE, referring to his staff members resignations. "But as I began thinking about the situation later that day, 12 February, I became what I would describe as mildly annoyed that they had presumed to take these significant actions of resigning without consulting me first to determine whether I would welcome the resignations . . . . After thinking about the matter and sleeping on it, on 13 February I asked both men to meet with me personally. I thanked them for their contributions and dedication, but told both that it would be my preference that they agree to return to federal service in my congressional office. I pointed out that since both had made the contributions at a time when they were not employees, the contributions were completely lawful and within their constitutional rights. I further argued that their having made such contributions could not render them ineligible for subsequent federal service . . . . I asked both to return to employment in my office, and both agreed. I then appointed both men to their positions at their previous salaries."

Isn't law dodging a crime? Are these people above the law or something?

EDIT:

The best course of action would be let them kill themselves to their hearts content. On the one side you have retarded unpopular islamic governement and on the other side retarded islamic fanatics. If one group will win, they will probably destroy the opposition and bring stability to country. If the "right" group wins, it will be even better for USA!
USA should really stop playing hypocritical world policeman. Maybe someone like Iran could help Iraq Shi'a government.

You forget that they are still humans, as are we.

Remember that. Always. Never allow a stereotype to cloud your judgement. Never.

[Helgoland]

You forget that they are still humans, as are we.

The one thing you may never forget, exactly.

That's why I hate my country's vulgar pacifism: The popular stance is 'violence is evil, so we won't act militarily'. If one guy does this, he goes to jail for 'failure to provide assistance'. If a whole country does it, it's a shining example of pacifism!

[Frumple]

Except you're talking more about breaking into someone's house to stop a spousal dispute than, y'know, calling the law or something. That's generally seen as something like breaking and entering, really. Offering help is one thing, but that's generally not what the bloody states have been doing. And frankly, as a critter from the states, I'm damned tired of it. We've been more or less at war, or at least bleeding money to fight other people's fights, for most of my goddamn life. Let. Someone. Else. Deal with it. If they need help, fine, they can ask for goddamn help and everyone can chip in, but it's not something we should be trying to shoulder the entire bloody burden of, constantly.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Except there is no law enforcement and the spousal abuse gets really fucked up, even effecting their immediate neighborhood.

[Helgoland]

-snip-

Breaking and entering to prevent a murder would still be legal. Very much so. And I'm pretty certain that even then you are not allowed to look away and do nothing.

[SalmonGod]

Except you're talking more about breaking into someone's house to stop a spousal dispute than, y'know, calling the law or something. That's generally seen as something like breaking and entering, really. Offering help is one thing, but that's generally not what the bloody states have been doing. And frankly, as a critter from the states, I'm damned tired of it. We've been more or less at war, or at least bleeding money to fight other people's fights, for most of my goddamn life. Let. Someone. Else. Deal with it. If they need help, fine, they can ask for goddamn help and everyone can chip in, but it's not something we should be trying to shoulder the entire bloody burden of, constantly.

There has hardly been a year in the history of our country where we weren't involved in some kind of military conflict, and especially over the last century, most of it has been shady shit under a very shallowly expressed benevolent pretense but mainly to benefit some capitalist interest.  I'm not just damned tired of it.  I don't even want to be associated with this place.

[Owlbread]

You'd better not go to Britain to escape it because we've had 100 years of pretty much completely unbroken warfare.

[SalmonGod]

You'd better not go to Britain to escape it because we've had 100 years of pretty much completely unbroken warfare.

That is one of the places I wouldn't prefer to go.  A visit would be fun, but I wouldn't see it as worth the effort to move there.

[smjjames]

Except you're talking more about breaking into someone's house to stop a spousal dispute than, y'know, calling the law or something. That's generally seen as something like breaking and entering, really. Offering help is one thing, but that's generally not what the bloody states have been doing. And frankly, as a critter from the states, I'm damned tired of it. We've been more or less at war, or at least bleeding money to fight other people's fights, for most of my goddamn life. Let. Someone. Else. Deal with it. If they need help, fine, they can ask for goddamn help and everyone can chip in, but it's not something we should be trying to shoulder the entire bloody burden of, constantly.

There has hardly been a year in the history of our country where we weren't involved in some kind of military conflict, and especially over the last century, most of it has been shady shit under a very shallowly expressed benevolent pretense but mainly to benefit some capitalist interest.  I'm not just damned tired of it.  I don't even want to be associated with this place.

Wasn't there always a war somewhere in Europe for a long time? I'm sure if you look at other countries, you'll find similarily long lists of military operations.

I see a lot of anti-pirate operations, as well as punitive attacks because someone or other either detained ships or murdered someone or other. Also lots of 'protecting US interests' due to one conflict or another. I assume that mostly means protecting the embassy/consulate.

[BurnedToast]

Except there is no law enforcement and the spousal abuse gets really fucked up, even effecting their immediate neighborhood.

And instead of breaking in to stop the fighting, you're breaking in, blowing up all their appliances, shooting whoever happens to be winning the fight at the moment then leaving them on the floor to bleed at the complete mercy of the person they were just beating a moment ago while you go out to the bar to congratulate yourself on a job well done.

If you're going to invade a nation to stop mass killings, genocide, etc you need to stick around and rebuild the nation, and occupy it to keep the peace long enough for the old hatreds to die down. If you don't intend to do that, you should stay out of it because you're only going to make the situation worse.

[smjjames]

The best course of action would be let them kill themselves to their hearts content. On the one side you have retarded unpopular islamic governement and on the other side retarded islamic fanatics. If one group will win, they will probably destroy the opposition and bring stability to country. If the "right" group wins, it will be even better for USA!
USA should really stop playing hypocritical world policeman. Maybe someone like Iran could help Iraq Shi'a government.

Except, aren't the Shi'a a minority in Iraq? The minority Shi'a rule is what keeps causing problems, Saddam Hussein, Malikis power grab.....

Also, the extremists winning is someting that nobody wants to see.

The problem here is in part because we keep fucking things up every time we try to intervene and in part because it's a chessboard of a landmine.