Bombing in Belgium Airport, Metro stations

On April 12 2016 08:37 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On April 11 2016 21:48 soberstone wrote: However, just to correct your history, it was created by the United Nations, not the United States. .... well played sir I pronounce you the biggest troll in this thread .. and not just for that statement The UN after WW2 aka Europe, wrecked by the war, in debt to the USA and other countries whose opinion doesn't matter Sheesh I wonder who was controlling that organization at the time. Hmm hmm hmm Good thing the USA isn't as stupid as creating a country on its own, but using an international organization and has been using it in various ways for its needs ever since. Don't speak about politics with intelligent people irl, you ll get laughed at

Forgive me for correcting your factually incorrect statements, how dare I.

So what you are saying here is that the UN is just USA proxy organization that exists for the purposes of fooling idiots like me. Mmmmk.

But I'll play along.

Since you seem to have a firm grasp on this grand conspiracy, what exactly is the purely self-interested, corrupt purpose that the USA had for "creating Israel"? Please, enlighten me.

Also for like the 50th time, since you seem to have a hard-on for Donald Trump and pretending I've said anything to indicate I like him, I don't although I'd much prefer him to Hillary Clinton because unlike her, I think he actually gets some things right and genuinely wants to do a good job for his insanely large ego and I actually do buy the overplayed line that he isn't bought and paid for. So no need to create strawmen because I'm not a Trump supporter. The emergence of Donald Trump only serves to illustrate the utter failure of both party establishments who both have essentially advocated for not enforcing our immigration laws.

On April 12 2016 06:33 Big_Rob_isback wrote: I always hear that the U.S. was so great in WW 2, but when I saw some movies it kind of seems like the Russians did the heavy lifting when it comes to stopping Hitler specifically.

The US got in way too late, it's true, and Russia definitely took a huge tole. But as previously stated, it was geography and Germany's invasion that necessitated Russia's involvement.

Hitler's single biggest mistake was declaring war on the US, we were initially only going to war with Japan and probably wouldn't have invaded Germany and saved everyone else's asses soon enough had that not happened. It was completely unnecessary and stupid by Hitler, but he had really gone off the deep end high on that amphetamine and believed he was divine and couldn't lose.

On April 12 2016 20:02 soberstone wrote: Since you seem to have a firm grasp on this grand conspiracy, what exactly is the purely self-interested, corrupt purpose that the USA had for "creating Israel"? Please, enlighten me.

There s nothing conspirative about this. Also, if you can't answer to that question by yourself it just proves that you lack basic knowledge about politics. Controlling regions means controlling resources means greater power which is a basic human need and everything leads to basic human needs in the end.
But then again you believe USA did something good by forcing themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan so... there s that.

All of this only confirms my claims about your knowledge on those topics

Anyways, yes USA didn't do much comparing to others in WW2. They just tested the deadliest weapon ever created on hundreds of thousands of people for no real reason. Yet its Germany that is forbidden to have a nuclear weapon. The USA however did everything in a smart way and secured every inch of strong positions they could take and did it in a brilliant way if we ignore basic human morals that is, but as I've mentioned, basic human morals and politics have nothing in common so its not like they are the big bad evil, certainly not worse than Stalin's policy who is probably way worse than Hitler himself, its just that everyone cared about jews and not russians in the end due to obvious propaganda which can make two reasonably similiar things look like they have nothing in common, anyways the USA just outsmarted everyone and they deserve the position they put themselves in.

On April 12 2016 16:14 traxamillion wrote: Na I just think it is funny you rag on the US when Mexico is trash. Wasn't even trying to refute anything you said. Too corrupt and screwed up to even engage in international politics at all.

So I was right you think this is some kind of country contest and you weren't engaging in a conversation at all, brilliant.

On April 12 2016 22:13 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On April 12 2016 20:02 soberstone wrote: Since you seem to have a firm grasp on this grand conspiracy, what exactly is the purely self-interested, corrupt purpose that the USA had for "creating Israel"? Please, enlighten me. There s nothing conspirative about this. Also, if you can't answer to that question by yourself it just proves that you lack basic knowledge about politics. Controlling regions means controlling resources means greater power which is a basic human need and everything leads to basic human needs in the end. But then again you believe USA did something good by forcing themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan so... there s that. All of this only confirms my claims about your knowledge on those topics Anyways, yes USA didn't do much comparing to others in WW2. They just tested the deadliest weapon ever created on hundreds of thousands of people for no real reason . Yet its Germany that is forbidden to have a nuclear weapon. The USA however did everything in a smart way and secured every inch of strong positions they could take and did it in a brilliant way if we ignore basic human morals that is, but as I've mentioned, basic human morals and politics have nothing in common so its not like they are the big bad evil, certainly not worse than Stalin's policy who is probably way worse than Hitler himself, its just that everyone cared about jews and not russians in the end due to obvious propaganda which can make two reasonably similiar things look like they have nothing in common, anyways the USA just outsmarted everyone and they deserve the position they put themselves in.

There are plenty of great scholars and philosophical arguments on both sides of the Nuke issue but for "no real reason?" Damn.... that's a pretty absurd statement.

As for the "controlling regions means controlling resources" stuff... I get the concept, was just wondering if that's where you were going with it.

A) Ofcourse we don't get any resources from Israel directly so this is already a retarded theory. We get oil from all the shitty dictatorships. Israel is rich because it actually makes stuff and has a free economy that produces things. If you think it's some sort of proxy country for us to control the middle east from, I don't know what to tell you, it's just ridiculous.

B) If that's what we wanted to do we would have simply bought off the people living there, like we do (wrongly) with plenty of dictatorships and theocracies around the world, not helped establish a free government. And yes, that would be conspiratorial - to somehow have the UN do our bidding to create a nation that we secretly control. That would be conspiratorial on the part of the US, the UN (consisting of many countries), Israel, etc. And I'm not saying corruption doesn't occur, I just think you have the ever-so-common State-fed liberal worldview that isn't concerned with facts and history, just broad theories about the evil intentions of Western Nations, particularly the US.

As we've established, you aren't good with the history stuff, like how you can't explain why Israel gave so much land to the Palestinians in 2000 in exchange for peace only to be attacked from that very land, and how this has happened 10+ times in the last 50 years, so that takes apart the whole if "Israel was just nice" stuff ..... along with Hamas's charter that says an Islamic caliphate needs to be established in that land.

This isn't a personal attack, but I'm guessing you went to a public university, that's usually where all the indoctrination occurs. Very little learning about actual objective material and a lot instilling of left-leaning wacky worldviews that have become mainstream.

Anyway, it's more than clear that both of us think the other person is completely naive and wrong so there really is no common ground to share here and work from. I'll quit making counter-points, it's pointless, feel free to have the last word.

PS - The one thing that is obviously great about Donald Trump IS the wall idea. Clearly Mexican illegals just wrecking our shit - and I don't blame them at all, I'd do the same thing if I was stuck in that hell-hole. And before you play the race card, this isn't about race at all, just your system of government, awful and corrupt, and I feel bad for the people who come here, but they ain't our responsibility and are voting for big-government, welfare-state Democrats and making us broke so I gotta say the wall idea is simple and amazing.

On April 13 2016 00:33 soberstone wrote: PS - The one thing that is obviously great about Donald Trump IS the wall idea. Clearly Mexican illegals just wrecking our shit - and I don't blame them at all, I'd do the same thing if I was stuck in that hell-hole. And before you play the race card, this isn't about race at all, just your system of government, awful and corrupt, and I feel bad for the people who come here, but they ain't our responsibility and are voting for big-government, welfare-state Democrats and making us broke so I gotta say the wall idea is simple and amazing.

Facepalm, these people leave their families, give all their savings to a coyote, cross the country and walk through deserts risking death and you think that a stupid wall would stop anyone?, all a wall does is create a nice market for ladders.

It would probably take less than 5 minutes to pass the wall and all of that after you have spend dozens of billions hiring immigrants building this endless monstrosity and spend more billions every year to maintain it, total good use of your taxes.


The fact that this isn't painfully obvious to you speaks volumes of how deep you think things.

This isn't a personal attack, but I'm guessing you went to a public university, that's usually where all the indoctrination occurs. Very little learning about actual objective material and a lot instilling of left-leaning wacky worldviews that have become mainstream.

I don't take anything as a personal attack here, still you shouldn't make guesses based on your educational system when it comes to other countries as no rational country would take your model

I did write a huge post, however you are right, we both think the other person is clueless about this topic so its kind of a pointless argument.

Facepalm, these people leave their families, give all their savings to a coyote, cross the country and walk through deserts risking death and you think that a stupid wall would stop anyone?, all a wall does is create a nice market for ladders.

#makedonalddrumpfagain

you did forget about the cost of the wall and the maintenance of it exceeding the cost in just a few years, but dont worry the mexicans will pay for it, since Trump said so !

On April 12 2016 06:33 Big_Rob_isback wrote: I always hear that the U.S. was so great in WW 2, but when I saw some movies it kind of seems like the Russians did the heavy lifting when it comes to stopping Hitler specifically.

And if the norwegian sailers didnt transport weapons to the russians as fast as only they could do at the time, Hitler would have crushed the russian army as well (I heard)

On April 10 2016 17:40 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2016 17:12 Santafairy wrote:   On April 10 2016 05:56 soberstone wrote: So now that we've established that there is a scary amount of Muslim fundamentalists, radicals, extremists, whatever you want to label it, what is the solution? Let's pretend for a second that we can eliminate or enlighten all of the bleeding heart leftists who think this problem will go away if the West "minds it own business". Because that's obviously step 1, the step we are currently fighting to achieve within our own ideological battle. But what is step 2? Is there one? I'd posit that step 2 is to become energy independent and take the financial power away from the theocracies that fund most of the terrorism (Iran, etc.), who make most of their money selling oil directly or indirectly to us. Yet again, this involves a battle against the Left who thinks its better to pay more for oil to terrorist governments so as to somehow save the planet, then to simply drill right beneath our feet. I say this because toppling governments and Democracy building always fails so they will need to figure out for themselves that their systems are awful and have their own revolutions, which will never happen until we stop buying oil from them and there is massive civil unrest. So you're against the faction that says the problem is the "West" and they need to go away, but you basically want to cut ties and let people fight it out and hope that, when the smoke clears, Muslim countries will be more like Albania and Turkey than a caliphate? The oil point is clear and we've known about it since the 80s (unfortunately people in power prefer the status quo), but I wish you would elaborate what you mean when you want to create "civil unrest," like what specific countries. Edit: Good link, on another note. I'm more asking than telling, I don't have the answers. And I don't want to create civil unrest, I just think it's probably necessary for change, as is historically the case, and it would be a byproduct of the theocracies going broke (I'd think) and people rising up. But maybe the answer is more interventionism like in Iraq. I firmly believe we could have and would been successful had Barack Obama been willing to leave residual forces in place. I guess that was the strategy and it was working relatively well until we lost our nerve and Leftists took over, pulled out (while still toppling other governments like in Libya with no long term strategy in mind), and started doing favors for Iran. I don't know. I just know the common denominator undermining progress is the confused, Anti-Western Left who apologizes for Terror-Funding Dictatorships/Theocracies and still doesn't understand that Capitalism is the only economic system on that planet that works for large, culture-diverse nations. So I'm pretty much just committed to fighting Leftism the best I can, but I am curious if you or anyone else in this thread who has been shown to be intelligent have a specific philosophy or plan as to how we should attack the problem of Islamism. Edit: I guess maybe one general answer to my question is to let Non-Partisan experienced Military personnel start making foreign policy decisions instead of self-interested politicians in general.... the irony is it would take a politician to make that call.

One aside on Iraq is we left at their government's request.

I think stopping the gravy train of oil money to fundamentalism is a given, of course.

What you have to do is start with what you think (geo)politics is. It's very dependent on the people involved, rather than merely the institutions. This is one of the reasons why DPRK relations have gone from bad to better to shit again. Administrations on both (all) sides change. Whenever you get a new asshole in charge of something, like most humans, they have no idea what the fuck they're doing so they wipe the slate clean and install their own shitty policy that they made up. My favorite example of that is NASA. With mild concerted effort and a consistent political will, we would have been on Mars decades ago (this isn't hyperbole, by the way - it's an argument not for here but the obstacles aren't technological, they're political, bureaucratic, or whatever you want to call it).

The force of conservatism in the world, which is so valuable in mostly preserving the status quo so we don't fuck up our civilization too much all at once, is also an obstacle when it comes to solving problems. The reason is it's blind. It keeps the good things good and the bad things bad, and it's difficult to solve things on short timescales because of the magnitude of the challenge, and then it's difficult to solve things on long timescales because as I said before, the people get recycled and there's not so much consistency.

People who are wont to criticize Trump for isolationism, insinuating he wants to start trade wars and so forth, and that he doesn't understand a globalized world, they then turn around and basically advocate for building a fence around the Middle East and hoping the world fixes itself. But it's apparently a one-way fence. Their problems can spill over into the rest of the world, but anything the West could possibly do to modernize the Muslim world isn't allowed because of "colonialism" or "imperialism" or some other buzzword. Give me a break. We're at a point in history where we pretty well know there's only one type of system that can create a working, peaceful nation in the long run. With respect to large, diverse nations. There may be other ways to do civilization but they're as yet unproven (not sure about China). Or they're things that it's disadvantageous for part of the world to return to (e.g., forms of feudalism). The market, first of all, has to be free, but socially (i.e., democratically) regulated. There's a continuum you can fall on and have a workable economy. The government has to be mixed, but liberal. There is a continuum here as well: constitutional monarchies are not unworkable.

What's a non-starter is the notion that some people aren't "ready" for a normal society. The guy getting thrown off a building for being gay is probably ready, even if the guy who threw him might need some convincing. Savvy? It's too late in history. We're talking about countries that move hundreds of billions of dollars, they produce doctors, they have politicians representing democracy, any asshole can get an AK47 for $100, but they're not ready for a woman's testimony to be equal to that of a man. Fuck off. You can't just sit in Europe and the USA and the rest of the developed world with the wishful thinking that the first world could never lose what it has achieved and assume you can somehow quarantine the problems in the world and expect them to sort themselves out in hundreds of years. If you took that attitude towards poverty or HIV or anything else, where would it get you. I don't know what it fucking means when people say "they" are not "ready" for "democracy." It's something you only hear applied to Muslim countries because of suicidal cultural relativists (for example, Baal) posting from the luxury of the developed world. If you said South Africa wasn't ready for the end of apartheid, you'd look quite the fool.

I admit I don't personally do thing 1 to help the third world. But I don't fucking delude myself into thinking doing nothing is the answer just to make myself feel righteous. That's insane.

The thing about moving away from oil is you create an economic question when oil is a big part of the economy. The intended effect is you're taking power away from fundamentalism to make the society or government more liberal. But a result is they can also grip tighter on the little shit they have left (for example, the DPRK).

Iraq to me seems to show that cutting a country off for 12 years and expecting it to fix itself is bullshit.

If you look at reality, the USA is the only country that has the political and practical power to do military intervention (basically) unilaterally. Other countries could do it practically (esp. Russia and Iran in the region), but politically it never seem to be on the table. Why is that? Why doesn't the Arab world form coalitions and fix their own shit? They're pretty quick to band together if it's about a war with Israel. Why have the Saudi and Egyptian armies never intervened in Syria their own damn selves? Worth thinking about.

The UN is not a tool of the USA. The UN was designed to be as impotent as possible.

One thing the USA is really good at is special operations. I'm sure we don't hear about everything they do, but I bet they could do more against paramilitary/terrorist groups. The thing with drone strikes is you get people saying oh no you can never kill someone remotely. The fact is that these nations, like Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, they already fight militant groups. The USA, by virtue of its enormous defense sector, happens to be the best at it. That's should be a useful tool for our allies in the region, and we shouldn't live in a world where we have to kill bin Laden in Pakistan secretly.

The thing is in any contest, whether diplomatic/political or military, most people are just working towards their own interests. Not as many parties want to work towards a real solution to whatever specific problem might come up in the region. That's the one thing the US or a "coalition" or the international community can contribute.

In a pinch, I think military intervention is preferable to sitting on our thumbs. Think of it as an overcorrection. We can't fund thousands of Westhabi secular mosques of enlightenment in Saudi Arabia, but when a country goes off the deep end, we can step in and create a foundation for the future. I think that's what's happened in Iraq. I really sincerely believe the reason nobody has intervened in Syria is because the US was approaching an election cycle and Obama didn't want to deploy troops in the second term of a Democratic administration.

Europe's (much moreso than the US) assimilation problem is also part of this. They're the conduit for cross-cultural exchange because there aren't so many Westerners moving to the Middle East. The more secular and normal they become, the more of that seeps back into Muslim societies.

What's a non-starter is raising your hand and going "How about we do nothing?" It's like that John Cleese movie. Moriarty says he'll "stop at nothing" and the one guy says "I suggest we do nothing... perhaps he will stop at it."

On April 12 2016 22:13 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On April 12 2016 20:02 soberstone wrote: Since you seem to have a firm grasp on this grand conspiracy, what exactly is the purely self-interested, corrupt purpose that the USA had for "creating Israel"? Please, enlighten me. Anyways, yes USA didn't do much comparing to others in WW2. They just tested the deadliest weapon ever created on hundreds of thousands of people for no real reason.

I'm sorry, maybe you'd like the Japanese Empire back?

On April 12 2016 06:33 Big_Rob_isback wrote: I always hear that the U.S. was so great in WW 2, but when I saw some movies it kind of seems like the Russians did the heavy lifting when it comes to stopping Hitler specifically.

Most of the war in Europe was the Eastern front, yes, because Hitler thought the USSR should be part of Germany.

On April 11 2016 02:24 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + I would really like to know what argument you think you made. The implication of what I asked should be clear to any erudite person - the West was doing hardly anything in the region when Al-Qaeda executed the worst terror attack in history. Pulling out, as usual, has not been shown to be reliably effective for achieving what you want. And I posted a brief summary of all the shit the United States has been doing in the region for the past decades. My argument is that the recipe to brew terrorist is to stir up hatred through religion and ignorance and let it simmer, but this basic ingredient, hatred comes from your foreign policy, these people were affected by the US intervention one way or another, families destroyed in wars, relatives being blown up by drones etc, it is this suffering and need for retribution that powers terrorism (and again, helped by religion, poverty etc). Why is this so difficult for you to see? if you were living an ok life its hard for you to throw it away in a crazy pursuit, but if someone kills your mom before your eyes while you are young and turns out somebody tells you that God himself is telling you to avenge her and that after you do it you will go to heaven then no wonder they actually do it. There are two ways to stop this, you either withdraw from the region totally and stop this cycle or a total genocide so there is no one left to pick up the rifle... I obviously think the first option is far more reasonable.

What you posted was peanuts. You're just not living in reality if you still don't get that. The argument you're making isn't reasonable. It's like telling someone to swim across a river of piranhas, but make sure they don't have anything on your body that triggers piranhas, like raw meat (I don't know how piranhas actually work, this is just an example). Then the person gets eaten and you say it's his fault because he had spilled ketchup on his shirt. In the meantime hundreds of piranhas are eating each other and you also blame the guy for that. That if he had just been 100% clean of any food or food-smelling stuff, rather than 98% clean of it, there would be peace in the piranha river, but it's all his fault.

You are correct that religion is a huge part of militant Islam. Big surprise. That's why you get psychos leaving Europe to join ISIS. That applies elsewhere. It's not like the only psychos in the world live in Europe and everyone who joined ISIS from the Middle East was an innocent and nice young boy who wouldn't hurt a fly except that his mother got blown up by a US drone strike so he had no choice but to rape a Yazidi child to death.

Your nonsensical false dichotomy of either 1) build a wall around the Muslim world and quarantine it or 2) genocide all Muslims - doesn't deserve to be entertained. This is what I meant earlier when I said it's a non-starter. You need to be able to look at a country and say, what should be our goals here, what's good for everybody? Should we support these factions or those factions, should we help this influence or that influence, what kind of aid should we give, to whom, for what, what kind of sanctions should we have, against what, and why. If there's conflict in the country, what if any military action should we take? That's not to say someone always needs to act. There may be cases where doing nothing would be the best option. But you can't know that's the answer to everything. You cannot answer a specific question like "What kind of constitution should Syria be based on?" with "Leave American Dogs." Your attitude precludes thinking.

On April 11 2016 02:32 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + when you say peaceful, are you using that in the usual sense of the word, or in the sense of your usual dogmatic pacifism? So are you saying the US is peaceful? and if I dont believe so I have a dogmatic interpretation of pacifism? are you fucking serious? Who on earth would consider the US a peaceful nation? You have by far the biggest army in the world, you have been literally in constant war with dozens of different countries for the past 200 fucking years. I think its pretty safe to say that the US does not have a remotely peaceful foreign policy.

I'm saying you think like a 3rd grader. Or Gandhi. Like in order to be value peace you have to eschew any form of conflict. This is why you specifically told me you weren't talking about whether specific things that US governments have done were just actions or not. You specifically said you weren't interested in talking about that. As though the only way to be able to claim you value peace is to personally never fight. That's what I mean by dogmatic pacifism. Whether in your personal life, you see someone beating someone else up and don't interfere, or in the world a regime genocides an ethnic minority and you blame the imperialists for enforcing a no-fly zone. This is not a virtue.

"Who on Earth would consider Rome a peaceful nation? You have by far the biggest army in the world, you have been literally in constant war with dozens of different countries for the past 500 fucking years." - Trollus Baalimus, 50 AD

The only real wars of aggression the US was involved in were everything to do with the Indians, Vietnam (we've been over this before), and probably something to do with the Mexican border, but I'm guessing you're glad Texas isn't part of Mexico.

Remember the first war the US was involved in, the Barbary wars? When coincidentally Muslims were enslaving sailors? I wonder if they were just defending themselves because someone killed their mothers, because we didn't withdraw from the region. What presence did the US have in North Africa in 1800? I forget. There was the War of Secession, but maybe you think letting the Confederacy have slavery was a better idea? There was WW1 - is this where you say America created Hitler? I am so waiting for you to say that America created Hitler while trying to hold up the facade that you don't have an irrational anti-American sentiment. And let's not forget WW2, when the US conducted a surprise attack on Japanese torpedoes with its battleships and then declared war on Germany, and then used blitzkrieg to invade those peaceful countries while committing genocide along the way. It's such a warmongering country, right? I'm being facetious of course. The real demonstration of US imperialism came in Korea, when the armies of imperialist white pigs interfered with the peaceful attempt of the communist armies of the North to invade and take over the South as is their natural right to self-determination.

holy shit santafairy, whenever you type you type a lot jeeesus

First of all that piranha analogy is one of the worsts Ive read in my life... what in the actual fuck was that.

Im saying that the US intervention in the zone, by direct conflict and the CIA toppling regimes etc creates a sentiment that greatly helps terrorism, unlike dumb liberals I dont say its the ONLY reason and Islam is great, and unlike dumb conservatives I dont think military action is great and Islam is the root of all evil.

Also at no point I endorsed building any wall, you are probably confusing me with Traxamillions lol, I said to withdraw troops from the region and stop the CIA from fucking around with their governments.


My position on peace isnt dogmatic I never said to never fight, I am absolutely ok with self defense and the defense of allies which isnt what is going on, the US military presence in the middle east has nothing to do with defense but political and economical reasons, you are smart enough to know that the reasons these military actions are conducted arent humanitarian so stop arguing from that point.

And before you mention that Saudi Arabia is an ally (ironically the most radical muslims state) and that you were defending it in the Gulf war I am aware of this, you specifically asked of what where the US doing prior to 9/11 and I listed all the conflicts in the region that generated hatred enough to create that attack, and as you can see its a loooooooooooooooooooong list with most things having absolutely nothing to do with self defense.

We're at a point in history where we pretty well know there's only one type of system that can create a working, peaceful nation in the long run.

Are we?
Did we find and were able to apply a utopia ?
Damn, we humans are the best.
Lol @ Japanese Empire statement, the war was over, Japan would've maybe succeeded surviving for another year or two tops before giving up, much fewer lives would've been sacrificed and a whole region would be able to use. All of your military personnel that matters and scientist agree that Japan had NO way of escaping defeat nor inflicting damage on anyone else, but themselves

Anyways I get your points of view, however you simply ignore so many factors to put your views in a rational shape it hurts my brain. Let's say you are correct on everything, how do you expect arabs to take democracy and our way of thought in an instant after seeing how their families were bombed and so on and so on. Intervention is a problem because it creates hatred, hatred is easily passed on to next generations. In order to succeed you'd have to stay there for decades and create a really strong propaganda, which lets say is for the benefit of the world, would you think even a country like the USA would do? Invest so many resources for a longshot? You don't change a whole culture in a day, it takes decades at the very best, so whats the alternative ? Kill them all? You could simply NOT intervene and create a set of solid rules, ignoring liberal wings, that's something that could work in my opinion. Don't bomb the shit out of them, but do respond appropriately to given actions.
As the politics ran so far werent a response, but an initiation, which is the problem.

And goddamn at least you paragraphed your text well

The only thing I trust less than the government is when people are left alone to rule themselves
Governments suck sure, but people forget why civilizations eventually gravitated towards government rule, life sucked so bad before when nobody was in charge, shit was just too unstable. We complain about a lot of bullshit now but it's really just the distribution of resources which nobody will ever get perfect, most especially when people go in smaller separate groups and start fucking each other's shit up

On April 13 2016 23:51 whamm! wrote: The only thing I trust less than the government is when people are left alone to rule themselves Governments suck sure, but people forget why civilizations eventually gravitated towards government rule, life sucked so bad before when nobody was in charge, shit was just too unstable. We complain about a lot of bullshit now but it's really just the distribution of resources which nobody will ever get perfect, most especially when people go in smaller separate groups and start fucking each other's shit up

errrmmm no.

Early forms of governments happened through violence, the strongest caveman rose to power bashing the skulls of his peers, then later on peaceful societies like a town of fishermen were easily conquered through history by empires, the US isnt a state because the native americans thought "fuck this nomad life following Bisons around", it was because an anglo-saxon empire with better technology massacred them.


Its illogical to believe, we as flawed humans are so selfish that cant live in small grups because we fuck with each others shit, yet believe that if we give all the power to one group of flawed humans, that they wont fuck everybodys shit up.

Came for political discussion, stayed for piranha analogy.

lol
the clarification on not knowing how piranhas actually work was the best part

The piranha part was the best thing I've ever read. It's a great day to be alive.

On April 13 2016 22:11 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + We're at a point in history where we pretty well know there's only one type of system that can create a working, peaceful nation in the long run. Are we? Did we find and were able to apply a utopia ? Damn, we humans are the best.

That's just not what I said at all so I don't need to rebut this. I specifically said "working" instead of using idealistic language like "utopia" because there's no such thing and I live in the real world.

On April 13 2016 22:11 Spitfiree wrote: Lol @ Japanese Empire statement, the war was over, Japan would've maybe succeeded surviving for another year or two tops before giving up, much fewer lives would've been sacrificed and a whole region would be able to use. All of your military personnel that matters and scientist agree that Japan had NO way of escaping defeat nor inflicting damage on anyone else, but themselves

This is possibly the single most contentious and interesting question in history, and going "Lol @" for 2 lines doesn't inform the argument. We probably aren't going to agree.

On April 13 2016 22:11 Spitfiree wrote: Anyways I get your points of view, however you simply ignore so many factors to put your views in a rational shape it hurts my brain. Let's say you are correct on everything, how do you expect arabs to take democracy and our way of thought in an instant after seeing how their families were bombed and so on and so on. Intervention is a problem because it creates hatred, hatred is easily passed on to next generations. In order to succeed you'd have to stay there for decades and create a really strong propaganda, which lets say is for the benefit of the world, would you think even a country like the USA would do? Invest so many resources for a longshot? You don't change a whole culture in a day, it takes decades at the very best, so whats the alternative ? Kill them all? You could simply NOT intervene and create a set of solid rules, ignoring liberal wings, that's something that could work in my opinion. Don't bomb the shit out of them, but do respond appropriately to given actions. As the politics ran so far werent a response, but an initiation, which is the problem.

Like I alluded to, it's vital we educate and secularize people who actually emigrate to the West, both for the sake of Western civilization (so there isn't a 2-5-10% segment of the population that's making isolated microcosms of the Muslim world in liberal countries. That means things like banning faith schools [right now liberals don't want to ban faith schools because durr multiculturalism and conservatives don't want to ban faith schools because they don't want to give up their own], strong programs for education, including adult education. Real social programs, not just handing out welfare. And for that to work you first of all need to curb and undo the recent wave of mass economic migration which nobody was prepared to handle.) and for the sake of countries in the Muslim world where reason can seep into. I would want to consider banning freestanding private mosques also. Niqab bans on the lines of France/Turkey are worth thinking about.

We don't bomb the shit out of "them" anyway. Muslims regularly and largely get killed by other Muslims. If we followed your logic, then with or without "us," the civility (or whatever word you want to substitute) of whatever society would be nonincreasing. Obviously you can't build Rome in a day. And obviously "kill them all" is not an alternative.

What are you talking about when you say create a "set of solid rules" and not intervene? Can you flesh that out with a specific country (if not today, at some point in recent decades) as an example? That would be good to take a look at.

On April 13 2016 21:29 Baalim wrote: First of all that piranha analogy is one of the worsts Ive read in my life... what in the actual fuck was that.

Let me guess, you can't even begin to explain what's wrong with it?

I'm glad everyone appreciated it, but the point is piranhas aren't the point of the analogy. I'm sure Baal read it and thought nothing more than "piranhas must be a slur for Arabs because Santafairy obviously thinks brown people are savages." Let me explain with another analogy, because you need to understand the logical point I'm making even if you disagree on interpreting different amounts of intervention or "meddling" as lots or not a lot.

Imagine you had cancer. Imagine also you're also a huge fan of alternative medicine. So you visit a homeopath. He says garlic homeopathy is the cure to nasopharyngeal cancer, which you have. Your significant other suggests getting advanced imaging at a real doctor also. You drink the homeopathic garlic water and go back to the doctor also and there's no improvement. So you go to the quack and tell him there was no improvement. Then he tells you the problem was the water you drank wasn't diluted enough. That it must have still had 1% as much garlic in it. And that's why it didn't work. Because you have to dilute it to 0% garlic exactly. And unless you do that perfectly, it won't work. And he will also tell you that chemotherapy makes cancer worse.

Do you understand the point? You're asking me to believe that militant Islam would be totally nonviolent except that the US fired some cruise missiles at peaceful terrorist camps in 1998. The evidence is historical. Would you not agree we've done more lately than we did in the 90s? But we haven't had another 9/11.

On April 13 2016 21:29 Baalim wrote: Im saying that the US intervention in the zone, by direct conflict and the CIA toppling regimes etc creates a sentiment that greatly helps terrorism, unlike dumb liberals I dont say its the ONLY reason and Islam is great, and unlike dumb conservatives I dont think military action is great and Islam is the root of all evil. Also at no point I endorsed building any wall, you are probably confusing me with Traxamillions lol, I said to withdraw troops from the region and stop the CIA from fucking around with their governments.

Nobody in this thread endorsed genocide either, asshole. That's why your false dichotomy got thrown out. There is no way, even as a thought experiment, to cut off the Muslim world from the Western.

On April 13 2016 21:29 Baalim wrote: My position on peace isnt dogmatic I never said to never fight, I am absolutely ok with self defense and the defense of allies which isnt what is going on, the US military presence in the middle east has nothing to do with defense but political and economical reasons, you are smart enough to know that the reasons these military actions are conducted arent humanitarian so stop arguing from that point.

"You are smart enough to know I'm right so stop disagreeing."

On April 13 2016 21:29 Baalim wrote: And before you mention that Saudi Arabia is an ally (ironically the most radical muslims state) and that you were defending it in the Gulf war I am aware of this, you specifically asked of what where the US doing prior to 9/11 and I listed all the conflicts in the region that generated hatred enough to create that attack, and as you can see its a loooooooooooooooooooong list with most things having absolutely nothing to do with self defense.

Yes, you literally just said you had no problem with the defense of allies. And now you're saying it doesn't matter what we do, because even if it's justified, it's too triggering to fanatics so we should try to appease them.

Anyway - *raises hand* - it doesn't really matter whether Saudi Arabia or Kuwait is someone's ally or not. The point is it's bad to let fascist countries invade their neighbors.

Why don't you give us a hypothetical situation in which you support some form of military intervention? It doesn't have to be the occupation of a country. I just want to know under what circumstances, no talking in circles, you think firing at least one bullet is allowed.

Yoiu think everybody laughed about the piranha analogy for no reason? we laughed at it because its absolutely stupid.

Also your analogy of medicine is wrong because you are assuming "peace" is the hoax, what if you reverse it and peace was chemo, and you are simply advocating for different concentrations and forms of homeopathy as intervention policies?

Also that graph makes no sense, you make a line graph when X value has a constant increment and Y is a variable, when both are variables and you input them you should use a dispersion graph but I kind of understand what that graph is supposed to mean, and of course direct terrorism does not correspond directly to the intervention "amount" in that second, its a social process, if you obliterate a muslim country today you dont get instant counterattacks, it takes times for terrorist cells to be formed, grow, train people, conduct a plan etc and since 9/11 intervention has been really high and we can say that terrorism hasnt gone down and most terrorist cells like Al Quaeda are bigger than they were in 9/11.

"You are smart enough to know I'm right so stop disagreeing."

So are you saying that you honestly believe the the US foreign policy, afghanistan and Iraq war, the CIA coups, drone strikes etc are done for humanitarian reasons and not economical and political reasons?


And you already asked and I answered before, a good reason to "fire a bullet" is for self defense