TreeBeard Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: The American people themselves supported foreign adventures when they were either: -In support of American values -Self-defense Pretty naive take, no offence. A large portion of Americans seem to love a war. Let’s just take the biggest debacle in recent history, Iraq. It wasn’t for either of the reasons you listed, but got strong support from American politicians (296-133 in Congress, 77-23 in senate). Why? Because they went with how the winds of the public were blowing, and the American public were in favour. Quote
John Stone Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 ....... arguably what Trump wants is control of the Venezuelan oil industry - which was Nationalized in 1976. Many stories over what transpired but big U.S. oil is rumored to have lost millions. Which brings us to Cuba - annexation of U.S. business in 1959 (Castro) - which has led to embargo since. Quite likely Cuba could greatly benefit if this long standing embargo was lifted - might not even require a Bay of Pigs encore. Quote
TreeBeard Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, John Stone said: ....... arguably what Trump wants is control of the Venezuelan oil industry - which was Nationalized in 1976. Many stories over what transpired but big U.S. oil is rumored to have lost millions. Have the taxpayers of USA pay billions so a handful of corporations can make millions. Talk about oil subsidies!! Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: 1. Pretty naive take, no offence. A large portion of Americans seem to love a war. 2.Let’s just take the biggest debacle in recent history, Iraq. 3. It wasn’t for either of the reasons you listed, but got strong support from American politicians (296-133 in Congress, 77-23 in senate). Why? Because they went with how the winds of the public were blowing, and the American public were in favour. 1. Uh... well there's no way to assess the truth of that statement. "Love" a war ? Trump and the entire Tea Party seemed to be pretty bullish on peace, by their statements so it's hard to reconcile that. 2. The most recent "debacle" I would say, militarily, was a withdrawal... from Afghanistan. 3. It's not like they're never in favour of war but what was the stated reason ? WMDs. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 38 minutes ago, User said: Once again, the world existed before all this spite and hatred of Trump. NATO decided might makes right in Libya back in 2011. Canada was a part of that. The list goes on. The world timeline and history didn’t begin the day Trump took office. Yes, the world existed. The Libya thing... wow I can barely remember... I think there was a civil war that they were helping to tip over but it was internationally based. So... might makes right maybe by committee on that one. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TreeBeard Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 Just now, Michael Hardner said: Trump and the entire Tea Party seemed to be pretty bullish on peace, by their statements so it's hard to reconcile that. Really? You wouldn’t just chalk it up to Trump lying and his followers following? And once he says something different, they follow that. There’s no deep principle involved with Trump or the American public who follows him. 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: The most recent "debacle" I would say, militarily, was a withdrawal... from Afghanistan. I think the bigger debacle, and more pertinent example, was Iraq 2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: It's not like they're never in favour of war but what was the stated reason ? WMDs. Sure. Even when that was proven to be a lie, support for the war was quite high. Virtually no consequences politically for a lie that got thousands of Americans killed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. Quote
John Stone Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Have the taxpayers of USA pay billions so a handful of corporations can make millions. Talk about oil subsidies!! "Walk softly but carry a big stick" / Roosevelt Quote
John Stone Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Have the taxpayers of USA pay billions so a handful of corporations can make millions. Talk about oil subsidies!! 'Walk softly but carry a big stick' / Roosevelt Quote
robosmith Posted January 4 Author Report Posted January 4 13 minutes ago, John Stone said: "Walk softly but carry a big stick" / Roosevelt It's SPEAK softly..... Quote "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is a famous motto of Theodore Roosevelt, meaning to be diplomatic and peaceful in negotiations while maintaining strong military power to back up your words if needed, a policy known as Big Stick Diplomacy. The phrase, actually an African proverb, emphasizes that quiet talk is more effective when backed by strength, preventing blustering or needing to use force, making the U.S. a respected global player. Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 6 hours ago, Scott75 said: Alright. Well, I generally support countries trying to nationalize their own resources, since they are the ones who live there. Anyway, I decided to take a look at an artciel from a journalist I trust. She definitely wasn't pleased with what happened: 14 Points on Trump Kidnap of Venezuelan President Maduro on the Sixth Anniversary of the Trump Assassination of Haj Qassem | Vanessa Beeley I generally support my country protecting the interests of its citizenry when they are ripped off by a country nationalizing their resources by stealing from them. Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: If thousands of migrants turn into millions of refugees coming by land and sea you’ll see how insecure your border still is. Maybe, maybe not, but the fact that Trump is serious is also the thing you leftists don't like to talk about, which is deterrence. Its not worth traveling half way around the world when you know when you get there they have military patrols on the border, they are actually arresting and rounding up illegals, and Trump gives so few shits about it all he is throwing people on planes and flying them to wherever will take them. 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: You must be really young if you don’t intuitively understand what happens when a repressive dictatorship is suddenly toppled with no obvious successor and a lawless power vacuum ensues. History offers plenty of examples, why don’t you start by. looking up Iraq circa 2003. Lots of ifs there... not happening. 29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, the world existed. The Libya thing... wow I can barely remember... I think there was a civil war that they were helping to tip over but it was internationally based. So... might makes right maybe by committee on that one. There is no "maybe" about it. They literally used their might in a different country to take out its leader. Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: That’s part of the calculated risk those companies knowingly accepted when they decided to do business there OK, let me throw your stupid argument back in your face again... when Maduro/Hugo played these games stealing American companies interests and property, then years not paying them, this is the game they played knowing the risks. Guess what, that FA and FO. 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: as Trump is suggesting. I am more interested in what Trump actually says and does than the mindless fear-mongering and lies you leftists peddle. 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: But LEGALLY SPEAKING every sovereign country has the right to make and amend its own laws on things like resource extraction. You may not like what Venezuela did but its not illegal in any sense Legal? OK, so what laws are two sovereign nations bound by that prevents one from going down and bonking the other on the head when they are screwing around? 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: There are overlapping motivations. As described in Trump’s National Security Strategy, the “western hemisphere” belongs to USA and therefore: This is another lie. 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: “Narco-terrorism” was always just a hoax like Saddam’s WMD A hoax? So... there are no drugs now or drug dealers and you are just denying all of reality? 3 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 2) The fact is that it’s one thing to pass a law, it’s another thing entirely to try and confiscate millions of guns Except, they didn't just pass a law, they did in fact confiscate guns. Either way, you are completely ignoring the point, which is that you are ignorant and claimed something that is not true. As usual though, you just gloss over that and change the subject. Quote
TreeBeard Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 43 minutes ago, John Stone said: "Walk softly but carry a big stick" / Roosevelt Did Roosevelt mean invade a country so corporations could profit? Quote
eyeball Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Uh... well there's no way to assess the truth of that statement. "Love" a war ? Trump and the entire Tea Party seemed to be pretty bullish on peace, by their statements so it's hard to reconcile that. 2. The most recent "debacle" I would say, militarily, was a withdrawal... from Afghanistan. 3. It's not like they're never in favour of war but what was the stated reason ? WMDs. It's the evidence they were willing to swallow to support the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq that should've given them pause to consider - like Colin Powell's comic book collection. So now the chuds are finally woke to the hooey? Not enough for me to disbelieve they won't fall for something even hooier. By the time they can discern the difference between shit and Shinola it's always too late. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 41 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Did Roosevelt mean invade a country so corporations could profit? Trump didn't do that here. So... what is your point? Quote
John Stone Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 34 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Did Roosevelt mean invade a country so corporations could profit? 38 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Did Roosevelt mean invade a country so corporations could profit? The construction of the Panama Canal was a key element of Roosevelt's, 'Big Stick Diplomacy', reflecting the U.S. commitment to using military power to achieve foreign policy goals in Latin America. The Panama Canal heavily favored U.S. economic interests. The land ceded to construct the Panama Canal was initially part of Columbia, which was the possessor of the the Panama Isthmus at the time - the U.S. big stick expedited the negotiations to accomplish this - def a bone of contention for decades after the canal was built. Quote
TreeBeard Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 11 minutes ago, John Stone said: The construction of the Panama Canal was a key element of Roosevelt's, 'Big Stick Diplomacy', reflecting the U.S. commitment to using military power to achieve foreign policy goals in Latin America. Except the Panama Canal rights were a purchase from the French, not a military action. 1 Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 2 hours ago, TreeBeard said: 1. Really? You wouldn’t just chalk it up to Trump lying and his followers following? And once he says something different, they follow that. There’s no deep principle involved with Trump or the American public who follows him. 2. I think the bigger debacle, and more pertinent example, was Iraq 3. Sure. Even when that was proven to be a lie, support for the war was quite high. Virtually no consequences politically for a lie that got thousands of Americans killed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. 1. Maybe, but we're talking about whether the people of the USA love war aren't we? Your point doesn't seem to support that they do. 2. Which was about wmd. 3. Support for the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war declined. I don't think Americans are going to be happy about this. I heard a report today that said polling shows they're not, but they didn't cite where it came from. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 1 hour ago, User said: There is no "maybe" about it. They literally used their might in a different country to take out its leader. Might makes right means that the ability to enact one's will is the primary rationale for doing so. I would put the actions in Panama and Venezuela... And probably the second Iraq war to be better examples than one such as Libya, or the first Iraq war where there was a coalition. But, yes, it's a factor in pretty much every action that's not clear self-defense. 57 minutes ago, eyeball said: So now the chuds are finally woke to the hooey? Not enough for me to disbelieve they won't fall for something even hooier. By the time they can discern the difference between shit and Shinola it's always too late. As I said in another post... I heard that polling shows Americans are against another nation building invasion. I guess we'll see. 1 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TreeBeard Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Maybe, but we're talking about whether the people of the USA love war aren't we? Your point doesn't seem to support that they do. I never meant 100%. Obviously. But there is a very strong contingent of the public that rallies around war. 5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Which was about wmd. If regime change was the stated goal, do you think less Americans would have supported it? I don’t. 6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Support for the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war declined. Well yeah. So? Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Might makes right means that the ability to enact one's will is the primary rationale for doing so. If that is the meaning you want to use, then that is not what happened here with Venezuela. Quote
BeaverFever Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 2 hours ago, User said: Maybe, maybe not, but the fact that Trump is serious is also the thing you leftists don't like to talk about, which is deterrence. Its not worth traveling half way around the world when you know when you get there they have military patrols on the border, they are actually arresting and rounding up illegals, and Trump gives so few shits about it all he is throwing people on planes and flying them to wherever will take them. That didn’t stop the migrant waves entering eastern Europe a few years afo. It’s a numbers game, there are simply too many of them. Also not just the US they’ll be spilling into other countries too and destabilizing those places which only spreads the breeding grounds for drugs, crime and terrorism and more migrants and that’s not in US interests either. 2 hours ago, User said: Lots of ifs there... not happening. Not an “if”. That’s what has ACTUALLY happened many times throughout history. And Trump seemingly has NO PLANS for what happens next except he’s saying somehow US is going to “run” Venezuela rather than quickly transition to a legitimate Venezuelan leader. That’s a recipe for disaster. How is he going to “run” the country? Occupy it militarily? Keep Maduro’s “narco-terrorist” regime officials in power? We don’t know and that’s probably because they don’t either and that doesn’t bode well for anyone. 2 hours ago, User said: There is no "maybe" about it. They literally used their might in a different country to take out its leader. Superpowers especially USA always paid lip service to international law, much of which was created by the United States, and when they felt like breaking those laws they went through the theatre of at least appearing to abide by them. They would get the UN votes, get congressional approval, build a multinational “coalition of the willing” to show they weren’t acting unilaterally, they would make the claim that they were in full compliance with international law in letter and spirit, even if they actually weren’t What makes Trump different is that he doesn’t even pretend to obey or respect the law (domestic or international) and he doesn’t think anyone else should either. In his “might makes right” worldview, he wants the lies, crime and corruption to occur in plain sight of everyone and for it to be to be the rule rather than the exception for as long as he is power. For people like him, facts and the law are just weapons for the powerful to use against enemies not objective standards that apply universally Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: That didn’t stop the migrant waves entering eastern Europe a few years afo. It’s a numbers game, there are simply too many of them. Also not just the US they’ll be spilling into other countries too and destabilizing those places which only spreads the breeding grounds for drugs, crime and terrorism and more migrants and that’s not in US interests either. Um... the European Union sees to it to bully their member states into letting the open borders madness continue, and countries like Hungary that do take their borders seriously have not been overwhelmed as you sit here claiming. 18 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Not an “if”. That’s what has ACTUALLY happened many times throughout history. We are talking about now. 18 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Superpowers especially USA always paid lip service to international law, Superpowers? Good ol Canada was in on this one too. Again, no maybe about it, might made right there and you were a part of it. 20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: What makes Trump different is that he doesn’t even pretend to obey or respect the law What law? This is the same stupid routine Radiorum was putting on. Maduro was a ruthelss dictator who killed his own people brutally to stay in power. He used his country to run sanctioned oil on the black market and to allow those narco-terrorists you pretend don't exist to run their drug operations from. That is the respect for law you are protecting and supporting here. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 44 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Well yeah. So? So your premise is faulty. Do USA people love war or not? If you're making that statement then you should see polls that say that the invasion is highly supported. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
CdnFox Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 5 hours ago, robosmith said: "gross exaggeration" is just euphemism for LIE, by MAGAts Oh Robo.... don't tell me you ate that dictionary i gave you AGAIN? LOL And your use of caps and bolds tells me you KNOW i'm right Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.