You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
I was with Trump on not wasting American blood and money fighting pointless wars. Invading another country doesn't suddenly become right because the people doing it are from your country, especially since they won't fight that war. Mattis has been clear about winning the wars you fight but not starting shit for no reason. Are we really going to pretend after all that has happened Iraq was about anything more than oil and making the Bush and Clinton families and the Carlyle Group, incl old man Bin Laden billions of dollars? Are cats becoming the swamp and advocating invasions, worse, justifying the invasions by Bush, Barack and the Clintons that cost american lives for their private profit?
I'm saying we limit the refugee argument to countries that you messed up. That means nobody from any place you haven't invaded/overthrown gets to march in and cry refugee. And that means countries like France don't to traipse across North Africa smashing shit and expect other countries in Europe to take the resulting refugees. You break it, you own it. Sounds pretty sensible unless if we want to keep fighting all of Israel's battles for it and destroy America to enrich a few connected people.
[–]LetItBurn0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
A world view that believes someone or something is in control and ignores both entropy and historical geographic context, creates blind spots. Unforseen consequences of actions are the rule not the exception. No one forced Iraq into Kuwait in 90 which started the saga that spun out of control, nor did anyone force Saddam into a heavy handed assault on people inside his country which lead to the no fly zones. To start the history in 2003 is a way of framing the argument so that certian assumptions can be made without the bother background it is a political device. The UN security counsel was involved from the start and the evidence for WMDs had been brought to light by the UN inspectors and the Clinton administration it did not spring forth into being during the Bush administration. It is difficult to impossible for the UN to agree on anything and yet they saw these actions as prudent.
As for the refugees flooding Europe you will find Europe either complacent or the driving force as in Lybia, and as for the middle east being broken that should be shouldered by Europe the roots run back to Sykes Picot and before that to the Ottoman Empire which I believe someone is trying to rebuild.
All of the actions occurring from the middle east to the Ukraine have deep historical roots your suggestion that it was solely for the benefit of a company is a convenient over simplification for those who are not aware of regional history. The theory merely places you on a side of a current political argument and serves to polarize and obfuscate all of the potential actions and possible out comes.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] chaos63 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
I was with Trump on not wasting American blood and money fighting pointless wars. Invading another country doesn't suddenly become right because the people doing it are from your country, especially since they won't fight that war. Mattis has been clear about winning the wars you fight but not starting shit for no reason. Are we really going to pretend after all that has happened Iraq was about anything more than oil and making the Bush and Clinton families and the Carlyle Group, incl old man Bin Laden billions of dollars? Are cats becoming the swamp and advocating invasions, worse, justifying the invasions by Bush, Barack and the Clintons that cost american lives for their private profit?
I'm saying we limit the refugee argument to countries that you messed up. That means nobody from any place you haven't invaded/overthrown gets to march in and cry refugee. And that means countries like France don't to traipse across North Africa smashing shit and expect other countries in Europe to take the resulting refugees. You break it, you own it. Sounds pretty sensible unless if we want to keep fighting all of Israel's battles for it and destroy America to enrich a few connected people.
[–] LetItBurn ago
A world view that believes someone or something is in control and ignores both entropy and historical geographic context, creates blind spots. Unforseen consequences of actions are the rule not the exception. No one forced Iraq into Kuwait in 90 which started the saga that spun out of control, nor did anyone force Saddam into a heavy handed assault on people inside his country which lead to the no fly zones. To start the history in 2003 is a way of framing the argument so that certian assumptions can be made without the bother background it is a political device. The UN security counsel was involved from the start and the evidence for WMDs had been brought to light by the UN inspectors and the Clinton administration it did not spring forth into being during the Bush administration. It is difficult to impossible for the UN to agree on anything and yet they saw these actions as prudent. As for the refugees flooding Europe you will find Europe either complacent or the driving force as in Lybia, and as for the middle east being broken that should be shouldered by Europe the roots run back to Sykes Picot and before that to the Ottoman Empire which I believe someone is trying to rebuild. All of the actions occurring from the middle east to the Ukraine have deep historical roots your suggestion that it was solely for the benefit of a company is a convenient over simplification for those who are not aware of regional history. The theory merely places you on a side of a current political argument and serves to polarize and obfuscate all of the potential actions and possible out comes.