ADVERTISEMENT

The main reason you can't have a liberal "image first" president

HighStickHarry

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Apr 21, 2006
36,190
45,435
113
Just because the Republican Party favors interventionist foreign policy and has a shot ton of war hawks doesn't automatically make it a conservative philosophy. It's actually a liberal/progressive idea to run around saving the world and giving them better government.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
I don't want to save the world and bring a better place to people. I would just like to show the people that declared war on us what that means.
This post was edited on 9/3 8:02 AM by Tulsaaggieson
 
Bomb Mecca, or any other "holy" site, and we'd never see the end of it. Zealous nuttery would go from 6, on a ten point scale, to infinity.

I'd stop aid to any country that harbors or supports these nuts. Find every money trail you can and dry it up. Eventually the populace have to turn on the leadership that are starving them to death.

I'd also take an aggressive approach to cutting the heads off the snakes. Drones, special forces, whatever. Hunt them like the Israelis did black September.

All I know is our present course is shyte.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by ThorOdinson13:
Just because the Republican Party favors interventionist foreign policy and has a shot ton of war hawks doesn't automatically make it a conservative philosophy. It's actually a liberal/progressive idea to run around saving the world and giving them better government.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
Not any more, Thor.
 
Originally posted by HighStickHarry:
Shit is hitting the fan in so many countries and we are doing nothing or barely nothing depending on the polling.
All our wars, trillions spent, hundreds of thousands of soldiers with un-treatable PTSD who can't find work, and the only one who benefitted is the military industrial complex.
 
Originally posted by NZ Poke:

All our wars, trillions spent, hundreds of thousands of soldiers with un-treatable PTSD who can't find work, and the only one who benefitted is the military industrial complex and ISIS and Iran.
FIFY
 
syskatineReply9/3 11:06 AM
Re: The main reason you can't have a liberal "image first" president



Originally posted by ThorOdinson13:
Just because the Republican Party favors interventionist foreign policy and has a shot ton of war hawks doesn't automatically make it a conservative philosophy. It's actually a liberal/progressive idea to run around saving the world and giving them better government.
Posted from Rivals Mobile



Not any more, Thor.

Party does not dictate what is conservative or liberal in philosophy. Really the terms are really nothing more than selling points today.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by NZ Poke:

All our wars, trillions spent, hundreds of thousands of soldiers with un-treatable PTSD who can't find work, and the only one who benefitted is the military industrial complex and ISIS and Iran.
FIFY
Yup. ISIS is the best thing to happen to the military industrial complex since 9/11.

And hmmmm, just think.....all you have to do is record a few people getting their heads chopped off by masked men, put it on the internet and then POOF, public support for another undefined war goes up by 30%, and another rapid increase of taxpayer dollars flows back into the system.

It's all a bit fishy.....

On the other hand, Islam is clearly a violent religion that is a real threat (particularly with the internet radicalizing people in their own bedrooms). I get that, I've read parts of the Koran. Mohammed was a general, not a pacifist carpenter like Jesus. So I'm a bit divided.......I'm definitely not completely discounting ISIS, I'm just skeptical about all of it. War is very profitable and the majority of American people have become tired of it over the last 10+ years.

Not to mention, seeing how eager our government / military industrial complex is to get involved in a region with little strategic relevance to us (Ukraine), makes me skeptical.

Plus, we have our own oil now......there's less and less reason for us to meddle.
 
I agree Thor.

I think we're seeing the evil genius of Bin Laden still working, too. Hopefully if we go to war again it's arab boots, and not american boots, that are on the ground. Is that a fantasy? Haven't you been over there? Are there any arab countries that can actually send military force to the area to corral ISIS?

I suspect they can't find one division of arabs that think sawing infidels' heads off is sufficiently distasteful to justify going to war.
 
I'm sure I'm going to get blasted here because my foreign policy views are extremely unpopular on this board.

Bin Laden admitted that he knew the US could not be defeated militarily. So his goal was to bankrupt the US by making us chase terrorist all over the world. So, could this still be part of some grand plan? I suppose it could.

Is Arab boots on ground a fantasy? Hard to say man. The countries that could provide boots are fewer now than a decade ago. We are supporting the overthrow in Syria, which are rebels who are ISIS sympathizers. We supported the overthrow in Libya by what became ISIS sympathizers, same goes for Egypt who were of the same cloth. Iraq, no need to dive further. I guess Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia would be capable but SA has been calling for us to intervene.

The irony of this whole situation is that the US has played a major role in destabilizing the entire region by either supporting or actually removing stabilizing entities ourselves thereby opening the door for the tragedy currently taking place. All in the name of bringing democracy and stability to the region. Hell, the hate from Iran goes all the way back to our CIA overthrowing their government and placing the shah, who was brutal to the people. Something our CIA was quite proud of achieving as it was the first documented overthrow of a government by them.

So not only have we been a major contributor to destabilizing the region we are to blame for the current situation. The ethnic cleansing of Christians is occurring because we either removed a stabilizing force or we supported the overthrow of a stabilizing force e.g., Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya which had been religiously tolerant. Yes, even Iraq was tolerant, the Kurds rebelled after we enticed them to do so. They thought we would aid them, we didn't and they paid a dear price. We then assume that people there hate us because we exist, or because we are free, or because women have rights. They hate us because they think we are trying to annihilate them. Once you take off the blinders you see that Iran wanting nukes is not really all that irrational.

The question is what to do now. We created this situation through our meddling. But instead of people seeing the error of our ways we are blinded by the arrogance of being "exceptional" and other crap shoved down our throats in school, by media, politicians etc. we then resort to blaming party and whoever is currently president, finger pointing, and deflecting blame. We just can't seem to realize that neither party is really all that different in dealing with foreign policy. It's a sick cycle carousel IMO.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by Cowguy:
Bomb Mecca, or any other "holy" site, and we'd never see the end of it. Zealous nuttery would go from 6, on a ten point scale, to infinity.

I'd stop aid to any country that harbors or supports these nuts. Find every money trail you can and dry it up. Eventually the populace have to turn on the leadership that are starving them to death.

I'd also take an aggressive approach to cutting the heads off the snakes. Drones, special forces, whatever. Hunt them like the Israelis did black September.

All I know is our present course is shyte.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Their whole religion is tied to the holy sites (much different from what you and I are familiar with).

With the sites gone, Islam disappears within 20 years.

That being said, I wouldn't have the nerve to make that decision. I'm only good with making an off the wall observation like this on a message board. Anonymously.
This post was edited on 9/10 9:16 AM by ThePokewithNoName
 
Originally posted by ThorOdinson13:
I'm sure I'm going to get blasted here because my foreign policy views are extremely unpopular on this board.

Bin Laden admitted that he knew the US could not be defeated militarily. So his goal was to bankrupt the US by making us chase terrorist all over the world. So, could this still be part of some grand plan? I suppose it could.

Is Arab boots on ground a fantasy? Hard to say man. The countries that could provide boots are fewer now than a decade ago. We are supporting the overthrow in Syria, which are rebels who are ISIS sympathizers. We supported the overthrow in Libya by what became ISIS sympathizers, same goes for Egypt who were of the same cloth. Iraq, no need to dive further. I guess Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia would be capable but SA has been calling for us to intervene.

The irony of this whole situation is that the US has played a major role in destabilizing the entire region by either supporting or actually removing stabilizing entities ourselves thereby opening the door for the tragedy currently taking place. All in the name of bringing democracy and stability to the region. Hell, the hate from Iran goes all the way back to our CIA overthrowing their government and placing the shah, who was brutal to the people. Something our CIA was quite proud of achieving as it was the first documented overthrow of a government by them.

So not only have we been a major contributor to destabilizing the region we are to blame for the current situation. The ethnic cleansing of Christians is occurring because we either removed a stabilizing force or we supported the overthrow of a stabilizing force e.g., Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya which had been religiously tolerant. Yes, even Iraq was tolerant, the Kurds rebelled after we enticed them to do so. They thought we would aid them, we didn't and they paid a dear price. We then assume that people there hate us because we exist, or because we are free, or because women have rights. They hate us because they think we are trying to annihilate them. Once you take off the blinders you see that Iran wanting nukes is not really all that irrational.

The question is what to do now. We created this situation through our meddling. But instead of people seeing the error of our ways we are blinded by the arrogance of being "exceptional" and other crap shoved down our throats in school, by media, politicians etc. we then resort to blaming party and whoever is currently president, finger pointing, and deflecting blame. We just can't seem to realize that neither party is really all that different in dealing with foreign policy. It's a sick cycle carousel IMO.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
I agree with you about 95%. I might disagree on Libya --- after his terrorist stunts (West German disco bombing and Lockerbie bombing, off the top of my head) I'd probably give whoever's trying to take him out a nudge, even knowing it might someday lead to "untidyness", as Rumsfeld says. That's a different analysis, history and set of facts, though.... and I don't have strong feelings about that, but certainly understand Uncle Sam had a long memory and an old score to settle with Khadaffi.

I don't know that we really had much choice or did a helluva lot in Egypt or Syria, but I think you're spot on about everything else.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT