Nationalist Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 Its amusing...in a tragic sort of way. US grunts are preparing to assault Iran. Question: Is Isreal worth all this? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Legato Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 8 hours ago, robosmith said: You are a fool if you believe the Ayatollahs believe that. Like with any religion, that is just the story they tell their faithful to control them. Okay sorry a beer keller with 72 virgins. Quote
Nationalist Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 5 minutes ago, Legato said: Okay sorry a beer keller with 72 virgins. And the obvious question is... How disgusting is it that Islam promises 72 virgins to fck, should one die a devout Muslim? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
cougar Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 21 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Nothing will change for U.S. foreign policy...Iran has already been bombed many times over. It is the essence of foreign policy....speak softly and carry a big stick. You don't have to like it, but it is the reality for now and the future. Feelings about Trump's character and convictions changes nothing...he is the office holder, like many before him. Well, you can blame it on him and get him removed so you do damage control. The alternative is, we will see every American as a thieving terrorist. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 15 minutes ago, cougar said: Well, you can blame it on him and get him removed so you do damage control. The alternative is, we will see every American as a thieving terrorist. That's fine...all previous presidents had to face the music as well. It is the nature of a superpower beast that gives presidents the military and economic force to do so. I don't understand why Trump is any kind of special case given actual American history, other than a deep personal animus because of his character and populist ranting. Most Americans do not live with an aching need to be loved internationally...that is more of a Canadian thing, if only to differentiate themselves from Americans. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 (edited) 14 hours ago, robosmith said: It is ONLY the reality because people like YOURSELF are will to ACCEPT and EXCUSE it. Esp the RepubliCON Senators who could have stopped Trump from re-election. No...it has nothing to do with people like me or otherwise...it is the foundation of U.S. foreign policy going back more than 150 years. Back then it was called "gunboat diplomacy"....just ask 1850's Japan. The United States spends almost 1 TRILLION dollars per year on military "defense", and that's because our government believes the best defense is a strong offense. American interests are backed up by military and economic force by design...it is not a new Trumpian thing. NATO and other allies worry about U.S. force and actions, but they worry far more if that power was to be greatly reduced or removed entirely. Edited March 31 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cougar Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Most Americans do not live with an aching need to be loved internationally...that is more of a Canadian thing, if only to differentiate themselves from Americans. We don't talk about love. We talk about basic concepts of wrong and right. Yes, Canada has its own share of criminals, except they are not running amok invading other countries yet. Quote
robosmith Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said: No...it has nothing to do with people like me or otherwise...it is the foundation of U.S. foreign policy going back more than 150 years. Back then it was called "gunboat diplomacy"....just ask 1850's Japan. Matthew Perry is NOT relevant today. Sailing big ships to Japan doesn't work anymore. 1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said: The United States spends almost 1 TRILLION dollars per year on military "defense", and that's because our government believes the best defense is a strong offense. American interests are backed up by military and economic force by design...it is not a new Trumpian thing. Trump retreating to a pre-Geneva Conventions world is def NEW. 1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said: NATO and other allies worry about U.S. force and actions, but they worry far more if that power was to be greatly reduced or removed entirely. NATO has no respect for US power under Trump, because NO ONE can count on him doing what he's supposed to do. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 31 minutes ago, robosmith said: Matthew Perry is NOT relevant today. Sailing big ships to Japan doesn't work anymore. Clearly the larger point has been lost on you. American gunboat diplomacy is still very much in play. If Japan was too long ago...then look to Venezuela or Cuba today. Quote Trump retreating to a pre-Geneva Conventions world is def NEW. Nope...the "war crimes" whiners came out for Clinton, Bush and Obama too. Amounted to nothing...just as expected. Quote NATO has no respect for US power under Trump, because NO ONE can count on him doing what he's supposed to do. He is doing exactly what he is supposed to do, including getting those same NATO deadbeats (like Canada) to meet the 2% of GDP spending target. And Trump is not the only president to urge NATO to do so. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31 Report Posted March 31 50 minutes ago, cougar said: We don't talk about love. We talk about basic concepts of wrong and right. Yes, Canada has its own share of criminals, except they are not running amok invading other countries yet. Kinda...sorta...Canada (PM Chretien) led the way for the removal of a democratically elected president in Haiti (Aristide - 2004). Was that right or wrong ? 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cougar Posted April 1 Report Posted April 1 On 3/31/2026 at 4:42 PM, bush_cheney2004 said: Kinda...sorta...Canada (PM Chretien) led the way for the removal of a democratically elected president in Haiti (Aristide - 2004). Was that right or wrong ? led the way or went along to get along? That if true is still quite different from dropping bombs, invading a country, stealing natural resources and land while claiming you are liberating the citizens. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2 Report Posted April 2 2 hours ago, cougar said: led the way or went along to get along? That if true is still quite different from dropping bombs, invading a country, stealing natural resources and land while claiming you are liberating the citizens. Led the way by hosting the meeting and using the "Responsibility to Protect" cover story to justify the intervention by Canada, USA, and France. No bombing required, even if Canada had the means to do so. Point being that Canada has most certainly acted in the past, even if far less so than the U.S. Quote Canada played a key role in planning and building the rationale for the overthrow of Haiti’s government in 2004, leading to a decade and a half of violence and corruption that culminated in the assassination of president Jovenel Moïse last week. Documents reviewed by The Breach contain new details about a secretive meeting hosted by the Canadian government in Ottawa and Meech Lake in 2003, which laid the groundwork for a military intervention a year later by U.S. and Canadian forces, and supported by France, against Haiti’s elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. https://breachmedia.ca/new-documents-detail-how-canada-helped-plan-2004-coup-detat-in-haiti/ Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cougar Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 On 4/1/2026 at 7:37 PM, bush_cheney2004 said: Led the way by hosting the meeting and using the "Responsibility to Protect" cover story to justify the intervention by Canada, USA, and France. No bombing required, even if Canada had the means to do so. Point being that Canada has most certainly acted in the past, even if far less so than the U.S. First , it is unlikely Canada had any interest in Haiti; then if it did, why was it the USA sending troops in as well? Yes, Canada went along to get along. Whatever the interests were, they were American interests. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 4 minutes ago, cougar said: First , it is unlikely Canada had any interest in Haiti; then if it did, why was it the USA sending troops in as well? Yes, Canada went along to get along. Whatever the interests were, they were American interests. No...this effort included far more Canadian participation and leadership. Canada, USA, and France joined to pull it off. Canada's military role was to secure the airport with troops. It is a cop-out to diminish Canada's role as just an American lapdog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d'état 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
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.