The mess in Syria

weso1 said:
Didn't you used to be one of those idiots back in the day? And does it really help to call those people idiots? Maybe we'd all get more folks on our side if we stopped calling those we disagreed with idiots? That's one thing I think I'm starting to learn in life. Penn Jillette ftw.

I've changed my mind since I started posting on any Braves political forum many times about several issues due to age and experience. But I find myself less willing to change my opinion due to my own pride. It's more difficult to change an opinion when the person whose opinion you want to change is being insulted.
Click to expand...

I don't feel the need to politically correct for people who blindly listen to what their government tells them. They are idiots.

I was one once, until I educated myself instead of the indoctrinated education I was force fed in public school system.
 
1002526_682724658202_1490749821_n.jpg
 
Sounds like we want to be the paid gun of the Sunnis (and Israel) and continue this fool's game of lending support to the very Sunnis who advocate their Wahabist or Salafist brands throughout the world. This really is looking like our attempt to break the Shia-Alawist-Christian link from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea - a continuation of the tired old, quixotic Neo-con game.

Oh, and here's another "lovely" story:

Link
 
I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed he wouldn't send our troops into pointless wars and would protect our civil liberties. Whoops.

Bright side is McCain didn't get elected and have us in 5-6 wars at this point in time like he's wanted to do.

Still waiting for a true anti-war candidate rather than the bomb first, ask questions later mentality.
 
CK86 said:
I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed he wouldn't send our troops into pointless wars and would protect our civil liberties. Whoops.

Bright side is McCain didn't get elected and have us in 5-6 wars at this point in time like he's wanted to do.

Still waiting for a true anti-war candidate rather than the bomb first, ask questions later mentality.
Click to expand...

As long as we're doing this:

military-spending_zpscdd22a38.jpg


there's no chance that an anti-war candidate would make it through the party gatekeeping process.
 
If people actually listened to what Obama says and not the words people put in his mouth -- he has been very clear over the years on where he stands on using force.
I disagree with him -- but at the same time --- he is as close as we are going to get to an honest to goodness anti-war / progressive President.

The only serious anti-war / progressive candidate that has ever been - got assasinated . That was 45 years ago.
I repeat, 45 years ago
Often people make perfect the enemy of the good
 
compared to the alternatives (McCain-Romney, Bachmann,Palin,Bush,Clintons, Perry...) or anyone even remotely capable (funded) of winning POTUS ---- yes, Obama is anti-war.
You are arguing for the perfect. After 1968 when Nixon -Humphrey beat back true anti-war candidates (RFK-McCarthy) that had a chance of winning -- Obama is as close as it gets.

First President I ever voted for was McGovern who advocated immediate pull out from Viet Nam and was lauded as an anti-war candidate.
He was labeled a coward (though he was a decorated WWI pilot) and suffered an historical loss. No one has been taken serious as a true peacenik since.
 
It's just sad that they're this hellbent on war when it makes no sense at all to go there. It sucks that all those people died, but it's their civil war, not ours. I don't see any benefits and all I see are a bunch of negatives when it comes to getting involved. It legitimately looks more like incompetence and arrogance (I can do what I want etc) than anything else.
 
Julio3000 said:
As long as we're doing this:
military-spending_zpscdd22a38.jpg

there's no chance that an anti-war candidate would make it through the party gatekeeping process.
Click to expand...

I know that it's the popular thing to show pie charts about how much more we spend on spending then other countries, but it's really not that simple. And when you look at spending per GDP it's not as absurd. I feel like there's a great discussion about defense spending that we could get into, but not sure if I want to tackle it right now. I believe in cutting some, but not to the levels I'm guessing some of you want to cut.
 
Not to go completely OT, but how is it less absurd when viewed as a percentage of GDP? Viewed as such, we still spend significantly more than everybody else, except a small handful of countries that are fighting active insurgencies (Iraq, Afghanistan), the "security states" in the Persian Gulf (Oman, Saudi Arabia), and Israel (self-explanatory).

Look at the countries that are in the same ballpark and you notice a few things: states that are or recently have been involved in civil wars or insurgencies. Small states surrounded by hostile neighbors (Israel, Azerbaijan). Quite a few authoritarian states. Not really the company that you'd expect us—a liberal democracy without enemies in proximity—to be keeping.
 
In our hour of need, where are they? Where are they? Code Pink hasn't abandoned the cause. Ron Paul hasn't. Where are the ones who are so important? Please share links if you find any of our stars and starlets speaking out! For their opinions matter. But, have the Sunnis gotten to them? Are they beholden to the Jewish lobby? Become War Pigs in their maturing years? Surely some of them haven't joined ranks with the military industrial complex. Some who are still principled.

Link
 
Compare us to countries like Russia, UK and it's more like a factor of 1.5 difference and still only about a 3 times difference compared to China in military expenditures, rather than a factor of 7 or 8 or whatever it is. So yeah I'd say that's a bit less absurd. At least puts a bit more perspective on it.

We're not in a financial crisis due to our military spending. It's not that much higher than comparable countries when viewed as a percentage of GDP. And this is the #1 thing the US federal government should be spending money on. The country can clearly afford it, while affording to pursue its other endeavors if it so chooses. I mean the only reason we are in such a bind financially right now is because of recent economic collapse.

I agree that we can cut defense back some, but the US being the overwhelming military force is good for the world as a whole. It brings a sense of security to those more democratic countries and allows the world economy (The 2nd most important issue right behind defense) to prosper. And you never know what the future may hold. Also, a lot of money is spent on making this country the most advanced technological military. That costs a ton of money to stay on top of that, but it also saves a lot of lives. I agree that there is a lot of fat to be cut, but I think we need to be careful when we throw these graphs out there and say... zomg we can halve our military spending and still be Team America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top