I hope a President Obama learned the right lessons from Bush and Clinton

[Dari]

1) Natural equality does not exist
This means that coming to an agreement as equals is bound to lead to disaster. Somebody must always be in a dominant position. With that said, diplomats are only useful for providing verbal succor to the loser and legal protection to the victor

The United Nation should exist for just that purpose.

2) The best defense is a good offense
If you really want world peace, you have to fight for it. Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars, an aggressive Russia, and a childish North Korea. The so-called "peace dividend" was nothing but an illusion that gave our enemies time to regroup and fight another day. A battle denied is a battle delayed. If America really wants global peace to endure, she must be constantly on the war path (decisively dealing with every threat to her leadership). Otherwise, like mold left unchecked, her enemies will eventually take her place. If you want to be the top dog, you have to wage a permanent campaign.

3) Fight for the long-term, not short. Unlike Clinton, Bush saw his wars through. Even though his leadership wasn't perfect and the costs were high (they're always high), he stuck to his guns. You have to. Leaving the battlefield early sends the wrong signal.

 

[RightIsWrong]

You're an idiot.

To be a little more specific and address the points that you and the neocons have been trying to peddle as something worthy of discussion:

1. Someone will always have the upper hand and/or be in a stronger position. To say that you have to fight and/or kill to get into the position is to be completely ignorant of reality. We were a relatively peaceful nation at many different times throughout our history and it didn't take us instigating or warring to still hold the upper hand. Switzerland is another example of a peaceful nation that still positions itself to be in a power position without the need of force.

2. Peace through war? I'm sure that if the cops really want to stop crime, they should be out arresting random people so that they don't have the opportunity to commit any crimes. Maybe the government here in the US should act like the Russian government during their hayday? We can randomly have citizens disappear but it will all be okay. We will understand that they must have been plotting against peace and the government had to address the situation before it got out of hand or be forced to address it later when the situation was graver. :roll:

3. If you think that heading towards a cliff and then revving the engines instead of trying to steer clear of it is so admirable.....I don't even know what to say. I'm sure that Vietnam would have turned out so differently if only we would have stayed another couple decades using your logic.

Edit: From his campaigning and his voting record, I would say that Obama has learned the lessons well from his predecessors and we will be out of Iraq shortly (at least as much as possible) and we will use diplomatic pressure to get our way instead of thinking that we can deliver peace via missile a la the Neocon mentality.

So sorry for your ideological death that you are about to experience. Actually....I'm pretty thrilled by it so I am rescinding that obligatory sympathetic apology.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
You're an idiot.

To be a little more specific and address the points that you and the neocons have been trying to peddle as something worthy of discussion:

1. Someone will always have the upper hand and/or be in a stronger position. To say that you have to fight and/or kill to get into the position is to be completely ignorant of reality. We were a relatively peaceful nation at many different times throughout our history and it didn't take us instigating or warring to still hold the upper hand. Switzerland is another example of a peaceful nation that still positions itself to be in a power position without the need of force.

2. Peace through war? I'm sure that if the cops really want to stop crime, they should be out arresting random people so that they don't have the opportunity to commit any crimes. Maybe the government here in the US should act like the Russian government during their hayday? We can randomly have citizens disappear but it will all be okay. We will understand that they must have been plotting against peace and the government had to address the situation before it got out of hand or be forced to address it later when the situation was graver. :roll:

3. If you think that heading towards a cliff and then revving the engines instead of trying to steer clear of it is so admirable.....I don't even know what to say. I'm sure that Vietnam would have turned out so differently if only we would have stayed another couple decades using your logic.

Edit: From his campaigning and his voting record, I would say that Obama has learned the lessons well from his predecessors and we will be out of Iraq shortly (at least as much as possible) and we will use diplomatic pressure to get our way instead of thinking that we can deliver peace via missile a la the Neocon mentality.

So sorry for your ideological death that you are about to experience. Actually....I'm pretty thrilled by it so I am rescinding that obligatory sympathetic apology.

lol. I think you may have missed my point entirely. Good luck trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb by talking to them or via surgical strikes.

Like I said, if you want world peace, you have to be willing to fight for it. In the late 19th century Europe was mainly a nation of equals. Look at how many wars they had during that period. You must be a revisionist.

 

[mentalcrisis00]

Switzerland is another example of a peaceful nation that still positions itself to be in a power position without the need of force.

The swiss have a rather huge army which is why it has been able to remain neutral during WW2 and today.

During World War II, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the Germans,[11] but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, economic concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion.

They used a combination of military power, diplomatic skill, and oh ya our involvement in WW2 to keep from being invaded. And now that they're part of the EU no one wants to invade Europe because most of the states there would be up in arms. Which eventually I'm sure someone will get the balls to just randomly start attacking everyone without regard for the consequences.

What I think Dari is trying to get across is that the human race thrives on conflict. Not to mention the entire universe seems to. Stars explode and planets die, not to say that the human race is a small model of the universe but simply put there is possibly an unseen force that keeps all these things in conflict. Now one could say that the human race has evolved past all these things to become self aware and know that blowing up the neighboring country is WRONG. Unfortunately we haven't and I doubt we ever will. In the short time that the first settlers came to the "New World" we've been engaged in at least a dozen conflicts. Some people make concessions to say some of them are justified and some aren't. BUT they're all part of our history like it or not, this nation was built on blood and carnage. If Columbus hadn't come here 600 some years ago and paved the way for more Europeans to come over and kill off the Native Americans neither of you would be here to bitch about wars or politics.

One way or another our leaders are going to screw up, or make decisions without public support. People say that WW2 was a justified war but hundreds of American Japanese were put into American concentration camps for no good reason. People say Clinton was a good leader but they seem to gloss over the fact that he led a botched conflict in Somalia in 1993. This was without the aid of any tank support which caused many of the American troops to be slaughtered.

I'm not saying war is good, or wars need to be fought. But I don't think the rest of the human race has quite caught up to our mindset of how the world should work. People are going to screw up, people will kill each other, war's are going to happen. In Vietnam we pulled out before it was finished and we just came around and fought another war in Iraq 20 years later... TWICE. Now there might not be a connection other than the fact that there is always going to be one bastard or another in Asia that wants to torture and mistreat it's citizens and we (the bad immoral Americans) are going to want to get involved to try and help those poor people.

I'm not saying either or you are wrong. I'm not saying I'm right, but in War nothing is right and I think that's why everyone is so torn about which band wagon to jump on. I personally like to stay off either of them and watch from a safe distance.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Dari
1) Natural equality does not exist
This means that coming to an agreement as equals is bound to lead to disaster. Somebody must always be in a dominant position. With that said, diplomats are only useful for providing verbal succor to the loser and legal protection to the victor

The United Nation should exist for just that purpose.

2) The best defense is a good offense
If you really want world peace, you have to fight for it. Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars, an aggressive Russia, and a childish North Korea. The so-called "peace dividend" was nothing but an illusion that gave our enemies time to regroup and fight another day. A battle denied is a battle delayed. If America really wants global peace to endure, she must be constantly on the war path (decisively dealing with every threat to her leadership). Otherwise, like mold left unchecked, her enemies will eventually take her place. If you want to be the top dog, you have to wage a permanent campaign.

3) Fight for the long-term, not short. Unlike Clinton, Bush saw his wars through. Even though his leadership wasn't perfect and the costs were high (they're always high), he stuck to his guns. You have to. Leaving the battlefield early sends the wrong signal.

My opinion:

You're taking a rather cynical view of what some war historians say is essential to a world power. That is, if you have power, you must use it. For good or for ill. Otherwise, you stagnate and wither while your peers rise to take your place.

The world is a very strange place.

I'm surprised to hear this from you, Dari. At first I thought you were being sarcastic. But if you honestly believe it, you've taken a sharp turn to the right. Freedom is paid for in blood.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: mentalcrisis00

Switzerland is another example of a peaceful nation that still positions itself to be in a power position without the need of force.

The swiss have a rather huge army which is why it has been able to remain neutral during WW2 and today.

During World War II, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the Germans,[11] but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, economic concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion.

They used a combination of military power, diplomatic skill, and oh ya our involvement in WW2 to keep from being invaded. And now that they're part of the EU no one wants to invade Europe because most of the states there would be up in arms. Which eventually I'm sure someone will get the balls to just randomly start attacking everyone without regard for the consequences.

What I think Dari is trying to get across is that the human race thrives on conflict. Not to mention the entire universe seems to. Stars explode and planets die, not to say that the human race is a small model of the universe but simply put there is possibly an unseen force that keeps all these things in conflict. Now one could say that the human race has evolved past all these things to become self aware and know that blowing up the neighboring country is WRONG. Unfortunately we haven't and I doubt we ever will. In the short time that the first settlers came to the "New World" we've been engaged in at least a dozen conflicts. Some people make concessions to say some of them are justified and some aren't. BUT they're all part of our history like it or not, this nation was built on blood and carnage. If Columbus hadn't come here 600 some years ago and paved the way for more Europeans to come over and kill off the Native Americans neither of you would be here to bitch about wars or politics.

One way or another our leaders are going to screw up, or make decisions without public support. People say that WW2 was a justified war but hundreds of American Japanese were put into American concentration camps for no good reason. People say Clinton was a good leader but they seem to gloss over the fact that he led a botched conflict in Somalia in 1993. This was without the aid of any tank support which caused many of the American troops to be slaughtered.

I'm not saying war is good, or wars need to be fought. But I don't think the rest of the human race has quite caught up to our mindset of how the world should work. People are going to screw up, people will kill each other, war's are going to happen. In Vietnam we pulled out before it was finished and we just came around and fought another war in Iraq 20 years later... TWICE. Now there might not be a connection other than the fact that there is always going to be one bastard or another in Asia that wants to torture and mistreat it's citizens and we (the bad immoral Americans) are going to want to get involved to try and help those poor people.

I'm not saying either or you are wrong. I'm not saying I'm right, but in War nothing is right and I think that's why everyone is so torn about which band wagon to jump on. I personally like to stay off either of them and watch from a safe distance.

Correct. When people have money or power...they want more money and power. International rules and regulations come from the strong, not the weak. Plus, there will always be conflict because someone somewhere is going to want to unseat somebody else. This is perfectly natural so let's not pretend that man has evolved from is animal instincts.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Dari
1) Natural equality does not exist
This means that coming to an agreement as equals is bound to lead to disaster. Somebody must always be in a dominant position. With that said, diplomats are only useful for providing verbal succor to the loser and legal protection to the victor

The United Nation should exist for just that purpose.

2) The best defense is a good offense
If you really want world peace, you have to fight for it. Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars, an aggressive Russia, and a childish North Korea. The so-called "peace dividend" was nothing but an illusion that gave our enemies time to regroup and fight another day. A battle denied is a battle delayed. If America really wants global peace to endure, she must be constantly on the war path (decisively dealing with every threat to her leadership). Otherwise, like mold left unchecked, her enemies will eventually take her place. If you want to be the top dog, you have to wage a permanent campaign.

3) Fight for the long-term, not short. Unlike Clinton, Bush saw his wars through. Even though his leadership wasn't perfect and the costs were high (they're always high), he stuck to his guns. You have to. Leaving the battlefield early sends the wrong signal.

My opinion:

You're taking a rather cynical view of what some war historians say is essential to a world power. That is, if you have power, you must use it. Otherwise, you stagnate and wither while your peers rise to take your place.

The world is a very strange place.

Well, if you have power, someone will always challenge you. You fight and maintain your power, you fight and lose it, or you do nothing and lose it. There is nothing cynical about it.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: mentalcrisis00

Switzerland is another example of a peaceful nation that still positions itself to be in a power position without the need of force.

The swiss have a rather huge army which is why it has been able to remain neutral during WW2 and today.

During World War II, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the Germans,[11] but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, economic concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion.

They used a combination of military power, diplomatic skill, and oh ya our involvement in WW2 to keep from being invaded. And now that they're part of the EU no one wants to invade Europe because most of the states there would be up in arms. Which eventually I'm sure someone will get the balls to just randomly start attacking everyone without regard for the consequences.

What I think Dari is trying to get across is that the human race thrives on conflict. Not to mention the entire universe seems to. Stars explode and planets die, not to say that the human race is a small model of the universe but simply put there is possibly an unseen force that keeps all these things in conflict. Now one could say that the human race has evolved past all these things to become self aware and know that blowing up the neighboring country is WRONG. Unfortunately we haven't and I doubt we ever will. In the short time that the first settlers came to the "New World" we've been engaged in at least a dozen conflicts. Some people make concessions to say some of them are justified and some aren't. BUT they're all part of our history like it or not, this nation was built on blood and carnage. If Columbus hadn't come here 600 some years ago and paved the way for more Europeans to come over and kill off the Native Americans neither of you would be here to bitch about wars or politics.

One way or another our leaders are going to screw up, or make decisions without public support. People say that WW2 was a justified war but hundreds of American Japanese were put into American concentration camps for no good reason. People say Clinton was a good leader but they seem to gloss over the fact that he led a botched conflict in Somalia in 1993. This was without the aid of any tank support which caused many of the American troops to be slaughtered.

I'm not saying war is good, or wars need to be fought. But I don't think the rest of the human race has quite caught up to our mindset of how the world should work. People are going to screw up, people will kill each other, war's are going to happen. In Vietnam we pulled out before it was finished and we just came around and fought another war in Iraq 20 years later... TWICE. Now there might not be a connection other than the fact that there is always going to be one bastard or another in Asia that wants to torture and mistreat it's citizens and we (the bad immoral Americans) are going to want to get involved to try and help those poor people.

I'm not saying either or you are wrong. I'm not saying I'm right, but in War nothing is right and I think that's why everyone is so torn about which band wagon to jump on. I personally like to stay off either of them and watch from a safe distance.

Correct. When people have money or power...they want more money and power. International rules and regulations come from the strong, not the weak. Plus, there will always be conflict because someone somewhere is going to want to unseat somebody else. This is perfectly natural so let's not pretend that man has evolved from is animal instincts.

Ever seen The Third Man?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...PXejnM&feature=related

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: mentalcrisis00

Switzerland is another example of a peaceful nation that still positions itself to be in a power position without the need of force.

The swiss have a rather huge army which is why it has been able to remain neutral during WW2 and today.

During World War II, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the Germans,[11] but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, economic concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion.

They used a combination of military power, diplomatic skill, and oh ya our involvement in WW2 to keep from being invaded. And now that they're part of the EU no one wants to invade Europe because most of the states there would be up in arms. Which eventually I'm sure someone will get the balls to just randomly start attacking everyone without regard for the consequences.

What I think Dari is trying to get across is that the human race thrives on conflict. Not to mention the entire universe seems to. Stars explode and planets die, not to say that the human race is a small model of the universe but simply put there is possibly an unseen force that keeps all these things in conflict. Now one could say that the human race has evolved past all these things to become self aware and know that blowing up the neighboring country is WRONG. Unfortunately we haven't and I doubt we ever will. In the short time that the first settlers came to the "New World" we've been engaged in at least a dozen conflicts. Some people make concessions to say some of them are justified and some aren't. BUT they're all part of our history like it or not, this nation was built on blood and carnage. If Columbus hadn't come here 600 some years ago and paved the way for more Europeans to come over and kill off the Native Americans neither of you would be here to bitch about wars or politics.

One way or another our leaders are going to screw up, or make decisions without public support. People say that WW2 was a justified war but hundreds of American Japanese were put into American concentration camps for no good reason. People say Clinton was a good leader but they seem to gloss over the fact that he led a botched conflict in Somalia in 1993. This was without the aid of any tank support which caused many of the American troops to be slaughtered.

I'm not saying war is good, or wars need to be fought. But I don't think the rest of the human race has quite caught up to our mindset of how the world should work. People are going to screw up, people will kill each other, war's are going to happen. In Vietnam we pulled out before it was finished and we just came around and fought another war in Iraq 20 years later... TWICE. Now there might not be a connection other than the fact that there is always going to be one bastard or another in Asia that wants to torture and mistreat it's citizens and we (the bad immoral Americans) are going to want to get involved to try and help those poor people.

I'm not saying either or you are wrong. I'm not saying I'm right, but in War nothing is right and I think that's why everyone is so torn about which band wagon to jump on. I personally like to stay off either of them and watch from a safe distance.

Correct. When people have money or power...they want more money and power. International rules and regulations come from the strong, not the weak. Plus, there will always be conflict because someone somewhere is going to want to unseat somebody else. This is perfectly natural so let's not pretend that man has evolved from is animal instincts.

Ever seen The Third Man?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...PXejnM&feature=related

:laugh:

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Dari
1) Natural equality does not exist
This means that coming to an agreement as equals is bound to lead to disaster. Somebody must always be in a dominant position. With that said, diplomats are only useful for providing verbal succor to the loser and legal protection to the victor

The United Nation should exist for just that purpose.

2) The best defense is a good offense
If you really want world peace, you have to fight for it. Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars, an aggressive Russia, and a childish North Korea. The so-called "peace dividend" was nothing but an illusion that gave our enemies time to regroup and fight another day. A battle denied is a battle delayed. If America really wants global peace to endure, she must be constantly on the war path (decisively dealing with every threat to her leadership). Otherwise, like mold left unchecked, her enemies will eventually take her place. If you want to be the top dog, you have to wage a permanent campaign.

3) Fight for the long-term, not short. Unlike Clinton, Bush saw his wars through. Even though his leadership wasn't perfect and the costs were high (they're always high), he stuck to his guns. You have to. Leaving the battlefield early sends the wrong signal.

Wow you must've been asleep in the past 8 years. This stupid, stupid neocon ideology is what alienated us from the rest of the world and got us to the bad position we're in.

If you need power and credible threat, it needs to be unilateral and international. Retarded "america, fuck yeah!" policy is obviously not working and in the case of militant islam, it only works to mobilize people and help recruiting.

It's pretty sad that after 8 years of self evident FAILURE of these policies, someone would be ignorant enough to push it still. Are you planning a vacation in the liberated Iraq anytime soon?

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Dari
1) Natural equality does not exist
This means that coming to an agreement as equals is bound to lead to disaster. Somebody must always be in a dominant position. With that said, diplomats are only useful for providing verbal succor to the loser and legal protection to the victor

The United Nation should exist for just that purpose.

2) The best defense is a good offense
If you really want world peace, you have to fight for it. Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars, an aggressive Russia, and a childish North Korea. The so-called "peace dividend" was nothing but an illusion that gave our enemies time to regroup and fight another day. A battle denied is a battle delayed. If America really wants global peace to endure, she must be constantly on the war path (decisively dealing with every threat to her leadership). Otherwise, like mold left unchecked, her enemies will eventually take her place. If you want to be the top dog, you have to wage a permanent campaign.

3) Fight for the long-term, not short. Unlike Clinton, Bush saw his wars through. Even though his leadership wasn't perfect and the costs were high (they're always high), he stuck to his guns. You have to. Leaving the battlefield early sends the wrong signal.

While I can see how you derive your viewpoints, I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings of past and present events.

The most obvious one is your statement about how Clinton and presidents before him should've aggressively pursued military solutions to world problems, and you name Russia as an example. Clinton was arguably taking the right approach to Russia. During the 90's you had a former superpower who was struggling for assimilation in the global economy while dealing with a crumbling national identity and infrastructure. Clinton was sensitive to that, and his dealings with Russia at the time reflected this. During the existing administration, Bush/Rice has sought to expand NATO, which is a more or less obsolete cold war relic. This cold-war tactic did however play into the paranoia and inferiority complex that the Russian population was undergoing, causing what many consider to be a huge surge in Russian nationalism, which is a dangerous thing. This (and the problems with South Ossetia) could have been avoided with strong diplomacy and attention to nuance - something that this administration has been incapable of and the incoming administration pledges to excel at. For our sake, I hope so.

On your other point, I see you've noticed that almost all of our antagonists can't actually harm us, but somehow we continue to go to war with them. When we don't have a foreign state presenting a 'threat', our leaders declare war on a word. As for the whole military industrial complex, you can find a lot of reading on the subject that will inform you as to why we're really in a state of nearly perpetual war. Trust me - it's not to keep the peace.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: Dari
1) Natural equality does not exist
This means that coming to an agreement as equals is bound to lead to disaster. Somebody must always be in a dominant position. With that said, diplomats are only useful for providing verbal succor to the loser and legal protection to the victor

The United Nation should exist for just that purpose.

2) The best defense is a good offense
If you really want world peace, you have to fight for it. Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars, an aggressive Russia, and a childish North Korea. The so-called "peace dividend" was nothing but an illusion that gave our enemies time to regroup and fight another day. A battle denied is a battle delayed. If America really wants global peace to endure, she must be constantly on the war path (decisively dealing with every threat to her leadership). Otherwise, like mold left unchecked, her enemies will eventually take her place. If you want to be the top dog, you have to wage a permanent campaign.

3) Fight for the long-term, not short. Unlike Clinton, Bush saw his wars through. Even though his leadership wasn't perfect and the costs were high (they're always high), he stuck to his guns. You have to. Leaving the battlefield early sends the wrong signal.

While I can see how you derive your viewpoints, I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings of past and present events.

The most obvious one is your statement about how Clinton and presidents before him should've aggressively pursued military solutions to world problems, and you name Russia as an example. Clinton was arguably taking the right approach to Russia. During the 90's you had a former superpower who was struggling for assimilation in the global economy while dealing with a crumbling national identity and infrastructure. Clinton was sensitive to that, and his dealings with Russia at the time reflected this. During the existing administration, Bush/Rice has sought to expand NATO, which is a more or less obsolete cold war relic. This cold-war tactic did however play into the paranoia and inferiority complex that the Russian population was undergoing, causing what many consider to be a huge surge in Russian nationalism, which is a dangerous thing. This (and the problems with South Ossetia) could have been avoided with strong diplomacy and attention to nuance - something that this administration has been incapable of and the incoming administration pledges to excel at. For our sake, I hope so.

On your other point, I see you've noticed that almost all of our antagonists can't actually harm us, but somehow we continue to go to war with them. When we don't have a foreign state presenting a 'threat', our leaders declare war on a word. As for the whole military industrial complex, you can find a lot of reading on the subject that will inform you as to why we're really in a state of nearly perpetual war. Trust me - it's not to keep the peace.

The point is for us to kill problems early on before they turn into much bigger ones. I wasn't advocating war against Russia and I'm not saying that the Bush Administration has done everything right. But we should always take care of problems fast, aggressively, intelligently, and decisively. There will always be regional superpowers (like Iran, China and Russia) but eternal vigilance is required and we must never give our enemies an opportunity to flourish. If they're going to grow, it should be on our terms.

 

[heyheybooboo]

To the Op's credit his US NeoContard Hegemony will lead to its own decline - but don't count on us becoming Switzerland anytime soon ...

Discounting the usual suck-ups (who we bribe with our billions of aid), the World Hates America, the War of Illegal Occupation has established a Shia domain in the cradle of civilization and we've made best buddies of the Rooskies and Godless Chinamen who now conduct joint military exercises.

""Extraordinary Rendition and Torture"", Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and 'collateral damage' will be recruiting tools for new generations of terrorists. American gratuitous acts of aggression will not be forgotten. The neocons shills lead by Bush and Cheney were cash cows for the military-security complex and our hegemonic self-destruction simply for the sake of profits for the armaments industry and BigOliCo.

A cynic might think it was purposely done to break the Federal gov't ... BOO!

Skeer yah ??

 

[ZzZGuy]

Oh yea, none of the USA's troubles are of it's own doing, none of it.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
To the Op's credit his US NeoContard Hegemony will lead to its own decline - but don't count on us becoming Switzerland anytime soon ...

Discounting the usual suck-ups (who we bribe with our billions of aid), the World Hates America, the War of Illegal Occupation has established a Shia domain in the cradle of civilization and we've made best buddies of the Rooskies and Godless Chinamen who now conduct joint military exercises.

""Extraordinary Rendition and Torture"", Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and 'collateral damage' will be recruiting tools for new generations of terrorists. American gratuitous acts of aggression will not be forgotten. The neocons shills lead by Bush and Cheney were cash cows for the military-security complex and our hegemonic self-destruction simply for the sake of profits for the armaments industry and BigOliCo.

A cynic might think it was purposely done to break the Federal gov't ... BOO!

Skeer yah ??

Gratuitous acts of agression?

Clueless.

 

[theeedude]

Which wars did Bush see through? We are still in the middle of both wars he started.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Which wars did Bush see through? We are still in the middle of both wars he started.

He's seeing them through as far as he's able.

 

[her209]

Wasn't Saddam and Osama bin Laden considered our allies (at some point)?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
On your other point, I see you've noticed that almost all of our antagonists can't actually harm us, but somehow we continue to go to war with them.

Pakistani terrorists did hurt India. Our interest is that India's enemy is our common enemy.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Dari
The so-called "peace dividend" was nothing but an illusion that gave our enemies time to regroup and fight another day.

If the peace lasted 100 years, is it still an illusion? Peace is peace. A global free market during peaceful times helps countries becoming economically dependent on each others success. That doesn't happen during war time.

Unlike Clinton, Bush saw his wars through.

And what did we get out of it? Absolutely f'ing nothing. Minus the death and destruction, we now have more aggression towards us and much more debt to handle in the meantime. We're weaker than we have ever been.

 

[Drift3r]

War is like fire. If you play with fire for an extended period of time eventually you'll get burnt badly. There are many and better ways to maintain power without resorting to physical violence. Only a simplistic brute would think that physical force is the only option to maintain safety and stability. I will agree that sometimes war may be unavoidable in some extreme cases but a war is usually a sign of a failed or corrupt foreign policy.

 

[manowar821]

I laugh at creatures like you, every day.

 

[Zebo]

None of you have to worry about Dari's warmongering. Bankruptcy and China/sovereign funds cut off will end this adventurism once and for all.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Dari
CLINTON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRAQ WAR

You're a moron. You're a caveman trying to beat back hornets with a stick. All you'll get in the end is an angrier swarm and a few bruises to show for your efforts.

If you think the Iraq War was in any way justified by your doctrine, then you're a fool. America SHOULD deal with threats, but attacking a nonexistent threat like Iraq is idiocy.

Edit: Correction, America can even deal with future threats if our allies agree with the cause. In the case of the Iraq War, every intelligence agency and government in the world told us that we were crazy. In the end he went through with it anyway. This is why the UN exists: to tell nations when they've made a mistake and should back the fuck down. We decided to fabricate some evidence and ignore the facts, thus creating the Iraq War. That has ERODED our power, the exact opposite of your claim. War can bolster a nation's standing in the world, but only if done correctly. Alienating our allies like we did was the WRONG way to reinforce our power.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Dari
CLINTON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRAQ WAR

You're a moron. You're a caveman trying to beat back hornets with a stick. All you'll get in the end is an angrier swarm and a few bruises to show for your efforts.

If you think the Iraq War was in any way justified by your doctrine, then you're a fool. America SHOULD deal with threats, but attacking a nonexistent threat like Iraq is idiocy.

Did you make that quote up yourself? I can't find where I wrote it.