quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And we aren't dedicated to the death of everyone who doesn't think just like we do.

He is projecting there

He expects that you think like a leftist fascist does

Sanity, you have the brains of a small garden mammal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Your problem is that you equate promoting democracy wherever you go with a crusade to force everyone to act just like them.

And your problem, BamaD, is right there in your own words.

Put simply, you have become so wedded to the idea that the West knows best that you can't possibly see that forcing democracy upon people is tyrannical.

And, the result is that anything the West does is all above aboard because how could we possibly be wrong? After all, we're leading the rest of the world into the coming enlightenment.

Never mind the glaring contradictions and downright brutal outcomes at times within Western societies; and at times an almost nihilist view on life and survival of the fittest.

Oh, and you've under-played the West's hand in attempting to force democracy upon people. Promoting is being very generous and liberal with the actions of your own government and a few others.

A nation is a threat we go in deal with the threat and we set up the government before we leave. Were we supposed to put the Emperor and military back in charge of Japan, re-instate the Nazis in Germany, no we established the kind of government we knew. And we aren't dedicated to the death of everyone who doesn't think just like we do. And still you are equating a political solution to a lack of government to a religious fanatics desire to force everyone in the world to see things exactly their way.
For your analogy to be accurate at the end of WW II we would not have established parliamentary republics, we wouldn't even have allowed England to have continued down that path, you would now be living under the US Constitution.

Clearly the United States is looking to maximise the number of like-minded regimes in the world. There's no gain in putting resources into changing us because we by and large agree with you - government to government that is. And, changing England wouldn't have been palatable for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained.

The Japanese and Germans had no capacity to resist, given the near total destruction of their countries. Have they benefited? Don't get me wrong, the Germans certainly have. The Japanese not quite so sure.

But, most importantly, you lost yourself when you posed the statement: "when a nation is a threat". I think you need to revisit that and you could come to the conclusion: "when we suggest a nation is a threat".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And we aren't dedicated to the death of everyone who doesn't think just like we do.

He is projecting there

He expects that you think like a leftist fascist does

Sanity, you have the brains of a small garden mammal.

Hardly, which is why your little friends can never get enough troll time on my threads

You however, do think like a fascist. As most leftists do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

I would swap nonsense with you, Sanity,

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Your problem is that you equate promoting democracy wherever you go with a crusade to force everyone to act just like them.

And your problem, BamaD, is right there in your own words.

Put simply, you have become so wedded to the idea that the West knows best that you can't possibly see that forcing democracy upon people is tyrannical.

And, the result is that anything the West does is all above aboard because how could we possibly be wrong? After all, we're leading the rest of the world into the coming enlightenment.

Never mind the glaring contradictions and downright brutal outcomes at times within Western societies; and at times an almost nihilist view on life and survival of the fittest.

Oh, and you've under-played the West's hand in attempting to force democracy upon people. Promoting is being very generous and liberal with the actions of your own government and a few others.

A nation is a threat we go in deal with the threat and we set up the government before we leave. Were we supposed to put the Emperor and military back in charge of Japan, re-instate the Nazis in Germany, no we established the kind of government we knew. And we aren't dedicated to the death of everyone who doesn't think just like we do. And still you are equating a political solution to a lack of government to a religious fanatics desire to force everyone in the world to see things exactly their way.
For your analogy to be accurate at the end of WW II we would not have established parliamentary republics, we wouldn't even have allowed England to have continued down that path, you would now be living under the US Constitution.

Clearly the United States is looking to maximise the number of like-minded regimes in the world. There's no gain in putting resources into changing us because we by and large agree with you - government to government that is. And, changing England wouldn't have been palatable for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained.

The Japanese and Germans had no capacity to resist, given the near total destruction of their countries. Have they benefited? Don't get me wrong, the Germans certainly have. The Japanese not quite so sure.

But, most importantly, you lost yourself when you posed the statement: "when a nation is a threat". I think you need to revisit that and you could come to the conclusion: "when we suggest a nation is a threat".

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

See you don't understand.
A different form of representative democracies are acceptable to us.
A different form of Islam is a death sentence to ISIS.
The Germans and Japanese couldn't resist, so might makes right?
Neither could Iraq till we ran out and turned our backs on them.
The problem isn't that we sat up a representative democracy there it is that we turned our backs on them when they needed help. Remember the JV comment? The Iran could never be a threat comment?
Do you really thing we should have installed another dictator in Iraq?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Um, from the link I just posted. FOX News btw.

quote:

Hajji Mutazz, the Islamic State's second in command, was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq, the White House confirmed Friday.

Mutazz was killed in the Aug. 18 strike while traveling in a vehicle near Mosul, Iraq, the White House said. Also killed was an ISIS media operative known as Abu Abdullah.

ADVERTISEMENT
Mutazz, also known as Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, was senior deputy to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and a primary coordinator for moving weapons, vehicles and explosives between Iraq and Syria. Mutazz was instrumental in a number of military operations, including the ISIS offensive in Mosul in June 2014.

“Al-Hayali's death will adversely impact ISIL's operations given that his influence spanned ISIL's finance, media, operations, and logistics,” the White House statement said.

“The United States and its coalition partners are determined to degrade and destroy this terrorist group which has wrought so much harm and suffering on the people of the region and beyond,” the statement said.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said late Friday that Mutazz was an Iraqi national.

Way too little, too late

Johnny-come-lately is just now starting to fly a few sorties when he could have nipped this in the bud when things weres first called to his attention and he laughed and called ISIS "junior varsity"

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Abu Ayyub al-Masri declared the formal dissolution of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the establishment of the the Islamic State of Iraq on October 15, 2006. Who's watch was that?

quote:

'We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant Iraq'

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/14/remarks-president-and-first-lady-end-war-iraq

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoVAnd do you happen to remember the name of the intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001?

We can go back and forth with the blame game if you'd like, or you can acknowledge that at least some progress is being made. That Obama is doing something.

Do you understand that Iraq and Syria are not ours to lose? I'm not saying that we should abandon peace-loving people in either country. The world as a whole must support the people of Iraq and Syria in their quests for freedom. But support is not the same as fighting their battles endlessly. We're guaranteed to lose if we try to do that because we do not know how. The age of imperialism is over, for civilized countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

And just for fun, since we're playing games, which US President, when asked about Osama bin Laden said "Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I don't see al-Qaeda marginalized, just a new head on the hydra. And an Iraqi government ineffective to the point of paralysis due to political, religious, and ethnic divides.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Your problem is that you equate promoting democracy wherever you go with a crusade to force everyone to act just like them.

And your problem, BamaD, is right there in your own words.

Put simply, you have become so wedded to the idea that the West knows best that you can't possibly see that forcing democracy upon people is tyrannical.

And, the result is that anything the West does is all above aboard because how could we possibly be wrong? After all, we're leading the rest of the world into the coming enlightenment.

Never mind the glaring contradictions and downright brutal outcomes at times within Western societies; and at times an almost nihilist view on life and survival of the fittest.

Oh, and you've under-played the West's hand in attempting to force democracy upon people. Promoting is being very generous and liberal with the actions of your own government and a few others.

A nation is a threat we go in deal with the threat and we set up the government before we leave. Were we supposed to put the Emperor and military back in charge of Japan, re-instate the Nazis in Germany, no we established the kind of government we knew. And we aren't dedicated to the death of everyone who doesn't think just like we do. And still you are equating a political solution to a lack of government to a religious fanatics desire to force everyone in the world to see things exactly their way.
For your analogy to be accurate at the end of WW II we would not have established parliamentary republics, we wouldn't even have allowed England to have continued down that path, you would now be living under the US Constitution.

Clearly the United States is looking to maximise the number of like-minded regimes in the world. There's no gain in putting resources into changing us because we by and large agree with you - government to government that is. And, changing England wouldn't have been palatable for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained.

The Japanese and Germans had no capacity to resist, given the near total destruction of their countries. Have they benefited? Don't get me wrong, the Germans certainly have. The Japanese not quite so sure.

But, most importantly, you lost yourself when you posed the statement: "when a nation is a threat". I think you need to revisit that and you could come to the conclusion: "when we suggest a nation is a threat".

See you don't understand.
A different form of representative democracies are acceptable to us.
A different form of Islam is a death sentence to ISIS.
The Germans and Japanese couldn't resist, so might makes right?
Neither could Iraq till we ran out and turned our backs on them.
The problem isn't that we sat up a representative democracy there it is that we turned our backs on them when they needed help. Remember the JV comment? The Iran could never be a threat comment?
Do you really thing we should have installed another dictator in Iraq?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Your problem is that you equate promoting democracy wherever you go with a crusade to force everyone to act just like them.

And your problem, BamaD, is right there in your own words.

Put simply, you have become so wedded to the idea that the West knows best that you can't possibly see that forcing democracy upon people is tyrannical.

And, the result is that anything the West does is all above aboard because how could we possibly be wrong? After all, we're leading the rest of the world into the coming enlightenment.

Never mind the glaring contradictions and downright brutal outcomes at times within Western societies; and at times an almost nihilist view on life and survival of the fittest.

Oh, and you've under-played the West's hand in attempting to force democracy upon people. Promoting is being very generous and liberal with the actions of your own government and a few others.

A nation is a threat we go in deal with the threat and we set up the government before we leave. Were we supposed to put the Emperor and military back in charge of Japan, re-instate the Nazis in Germany, no we established the kind of government we knew. And we aren't dedicated to the death of everyone who doesn't think just like we do. And still you are equating a political solution to a lack of government to a religious fanatics desire to force everyone in the world to see things exactly their way.
For your analogy to be accurate at the end of WW II we would not have established parliamentary republics, we wouldn't even have allowed England to have continued down that path, you would now be living under the US Constitution.

Clearly the United States is looking to maximise the number of like-minded regimes in the world. There's no gain in putting resources into changing us because we by and large agree with you - government to government that is. And, changing England wouldn't have been palatable for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained.

The Japanese and Germans had no capacity to resist, given the near total destruction of their countries. Have they benefited? Don't get me wrong, the Germans certainly have. The Japanese not quite so sure.

But, most importantly, you lost yourself when you posed the statement: "when a nation is a threat". I think you need to revisit that and you could come to the conclusion: "when we suggest a nation is a threat".

See you don't understand.
A different form of representative democracies are acceptable to us.
A different form of Islam is a death sentence to ISIS.
The Germans and Japanese couldn't resist, so might makes right?
Neither could Iraq till we ran out and turned our backs on them.
The problem isn't that we sat up a representative democracy there it is that we turned our backs on them when they needed help. Remember the JV comment? The Iran could never be a threat comment?
Do you really thing we should have installed another dictator in Iraq?

The United States held virtually no plan for reconstructing Iraq upon invasion.

Tony Blair is on record as scratching his head in bewilderment at the complete lack of any plan to rebuild Iraq on the part of the United States. See, Blair was a Christian missionary who really thought he was saving those people, a different motivation to US interests but just as dangerous all the same.

Blair completely misunderstood what the Americans were trying to achieve, but then his experience was dealing with Clinton and he thought he was getting more of the same. Turned out that dealing with Bush and associates was an entirely different matter, so whereas Clinton's regime had reconstruction on their collective minds, Bush's regime didn't.

What actually happened is that oil and construction contracts were handed out to all and sundry like confetti at an extravagant wedding.

The likes of Bechtel made an estimated 2.3 billion US dollars out of it, but pulled out of actually helping to reconstruct the place claiming there was no money left to do the job.

The United States effectively took Iraqi resources and handed them out as they saw fit and this was part of the same tactic they had employed in Russia in 1991, which also ultimately failed.

The tactic was to smash all of the prevailing institutions and start again, due to a belief that in the event a place is reduced to zero, that meaning institutions, distribution of wealth, society's hierarchy etc; then the free market will magically rise from the ashes and everyone will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Except it didn't work in Russia, nor did it work in Iraq. What actually happened is a vacuum was created in which assorted nationalists stepped forward to fill. Friedman's school of economics, proposed all those years back as a solution to the world's ills, failed comprehensively in Russia and Iraq.

I have absolutely no idea how and why you think the United States has any claim to being able to waltz 'round the world and attempt to change countries wholesale simply because they want other people to be like them. The fact that millions of people were rendered homeless and countless children were left without Mothers and Fathers, seems lost on these people who advocate violence from their arm chairs.

Your underlying claim is that you're helping these people in these countries - you're not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Your problem is that you equate promoting democracy wherever you go with a crusade to force everyone to act just like them.

And your problem, BamaD, is right there in your own words.

Put simply, you have become so wedded to the idea that the West knows best that you can't possibly see that forcing democracy upon people is tyrannical.

And, the result is that anything the West does is all above aboard because how could we possibly be wrong? After all, we're leading the rest of the world into the coming enlightenment.

Never mind the glaring contradictions and downright brutal outcomes at times within Western societies; and at times an almost nihilist view on life and survival of the fittest.

Oh, and you've under-played the West's hand in attempting to force democracy upon people. Promoting is being very generous and liberal with the actions of your own government and a few others.

A nation is a threat we go in deal with the threat and we set up the government before we leave. Were we supposed to put the Emperor and military back in charge of Japan, re-instate the Nazis in Germany, no we established the kind of government we knew. And we aren't dedicated to the death of everyone who doesn't think just like we do. And still you are equating a political solution to a lack of government to a religious fanatics desire to force everyone in the world to see things exactly their way.
For your analogy to be accurate at the end of WW II we would not have established parliamentary republics, we wouldn't even have allowed England to have continued down that path, you would now be living under the US Constitution.

Clearly the United States is looking to maximise the number of like-minded regimes in the world. There's no gain in putting resources into changing us because we by and large agree with you - government to government that is. And, changing England wouldn't have been palatable for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained.

The Japanese and Germans had no capacity to resist, given the near total destruction of their countries. Have they benefited? Don't get me wrong, the Germans certainly have. The Japanese not quite so sure.

But, most importantly, you lost yourself when you posed the statement: "when a nation is a threat". I think you need to revisit that and you could come to the conclusion: "when we suggest a nation is a threat".

See you don't understand.
A different form of representative democracies are acceptable to us.
A different form of Islam is a death sentence to ISIS.
The Germans and Japanese couldn't resist, so might makes right?
Neither could Iraq till we ran out and turned our backs on them.
The problem isn't that we sat up a representative democracy there it is that we turned our backs on them when they needed help. Remember the JV comment? The Iran could never be a threat comment?
Do you really thing we should have installed another dictator in Iraq?

The United States held virtually no plan for reconstructing Iraq upon invasion.

Tony Blair is on record as scratching his head in bewilderment at the complete lack of any plan to rebuild Iraq on the part of the United States. See, Blair was a Christian missionary who really thought he was saving those people, a different motivation to US interests but just as dangerous all the same.

Blair completely misunderstood what the Americans were trying to achieve, but then his experience was dealing with Clinton and he thought he was getting more of the same. Turned out that dealing with Bush and associates was an entirely different matter, so whereas Clinton's regime had reconstruction on their collective minds, Bush's regime didn't.

What actually happened is that oil and construction contracts were handed out to all and sundry like confetti at an extravagant wedding.

The likes of Bechtel made an estimated 2.3 billion US dollars out of it, but pulled out of actually helping to reconstruct the place claiming there was no money left to do the job.

The United States effectively took Iraqi resources and handed them out as they saw fit and this was part of the same tactic they had employed in Russia in 1991, which also ultimately failed.

The tactic was to smash all of the prevailing institutions and start again, due to a belief that in the event a place is reduced to zero, that meaning institutions, distribution of wealth, society's hierarchy etc; then the free market will magically rise from the ashes and everyone will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Except it didn't work in Russia, nor did it work in Iraq. What actually happened is a vacuum was created in which assorted nationalists stepped forward to fill. Friedman's school of economics, proposed all those years back as a solution to the world's ills, failed comprehensively in Russia and Iraq.

I have absolutely no idea how and why you think the United States has any claim to being able to waltz 'round the world and attempt to change countries wholesale simply because they want other people to be like them. The fact that millions of people were rendered homeless and countless children were left without Mothers and Fathers, seems lost on these people who advocate violence from their arm chairs.

Your underlying claim is that you're helping these people in these countries - you're not.

Never did I claim we were there to help the people in those countries.
We were there to help ourselves.
If we were able to help the people that was a bonus.
Don't tell me about the hype about removing a dictator, you have to go back to the first reasons to get the true reasons.
Removing a dictator was something people would support so a bonus reason was moved to the front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Your problem is that you equate promoting democracy wherever you go with a crusade to force everyone to act just like them.

And your problem, BamaD, is right there in your own words.

Put simply, you have become so wedded to the idea that the West knows best that you can't possibly see that forcing democracy upon people is tyrannical.

And, the result is that anything the West does is all above aboard because how could we possibly be wrong? After all, we're leading the rest of the world into the coming enlightenment.

Never mind the glaring contradictions and downright brutal outcomes at times within Western societies; and at times an almost nihilist view on life and survival of the fittest.

Oh, and you've under-played the West's hand in attempting to force democracy upon people. Promoting is being very generous and liberal with the actions of your own government and a few others.

A nation is a threat we go in deal with the threat and we set up the government before we leave. Were we supposed to put the Emperor and military back in charge of Japan, re-instate the Nazis in Germany, no we established the kind of government we knew. And we aren't dedicated to the death of everyone who doesn't think just like we do. And still you are equating a political solution to a lack of government to a religious fanatics desire to force everyone in the world to see things exactly their way.
For your analogy to be accurate at the end of WW II we would not have established parliamentary republics, we wouldn't even have allowed England to have continued down that path, you would now be living under the US Constitution.

Clearly the United States is looking to maximise the number of like-minded regimes in the world. There's no gain in putting resources into changing us because we by and large agree with you - government to government that is. And, changing England wouldn't have been palatable for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained.

The Japanese and Germans had no capacity to resist, given the near total destruction of their countries. Have they benefited? Don't get me wrong, the Germans certainly have. The Japanese not quite so sure.

But, most importantly, you lost yourself when you posed the statement: "when a nation is a threat". I think you need to revisit that and you could come to the conclusion: "when we suggest a nation is a threat".

See you don't understand.
A different form of representative democracies are acceptable to us.
A different form of Islam is a death sentence to ISIS.
The Germans and Japanese couldn't resist, so might makes right?
Neither could Iraq till we ran out and turned our backs on them.
The problem isn't that we sat up a representative democracy there it is that we turned our backs on them when they needed help. Remember the JV comment? The Iran could never be a threat comment?
Do you really thing we should have installed another dictator in Iraq?

The United States held virtually no plan for reconstructing Iraq upon invasion.

Tony Blair is on record as scratching his head in bewilderment at the complete lack of any plan to rebuild Iraq on the part of the United States. See, Blair was a Christian missionary who really thought he was saving those people, a different motivation to US interests but just as dangerous all the same.

Blair completely misunderstood what the Americans were trying to achieve, but then his experience was dealing with Clinton and he thought he was getting more of the same. Turned out that dealing with Bush and associates was an entirely different matter, so whereas Clinton's regime had reconstruction on their collective minds, Bush's regime didn't.

What actually happened is that oil and construction contracts were handed out to all and sundry like confetti at an extravagant wedding.

The likes of Bechtel made an estimated 2.3 billion US dollars out of it, but pulled out of actually helping to reconstruct the place claiming there was no money left to do the job.

The United States effectively took Iraqi resources and handed them out as they saw fit and this was part of the same tactic they had employed in Russia in 1991, which also ultimately failed.

The tactic was to smash all of the prevailing institutions and start again, due to a belief that in the event a place is reduced to zero, that meaning institutions, distribution of wealth, society's hierarchy etc; then the free market will magically rise from the ashes and everyone will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Except it didn't work in Russia, nor did it work in Iraq. What actually happened is a vacuum was created in which assorted nationalists stepped forward to fill. Friedman's school of economics, proposed all those years back as a solution to the world's ills, failed comprehensively in Russia and Iraq.

I have absolutely no idea how and why you think the United States has any claim to being able to waltz 'round the world and attempt to change countries wholesale simply because they want other people to be like them. The fact that millions of people were rendered homeless and countless children were left without Mothers and Fathers, seems lost on these people who advocate violence from their arm chairs.

Your underlying claim is that you're helping these people in these countries - you're not.

Never did I claim we were there to help the people in those countries.
We were there to help ourselves.
If we were able to help the people that was a bonus.
Don't tell me about the hype about removing a dictator, you have to go back to the first reasons to get the true reasons.
Removing a dictator was something people would support so a bonus reason was moved to the front.

Thought you just said: "we turned out back on these people when they needed our help"?

quote:

Once we destroyed their army it behooved us not to leave until they were able to defend themselves, apples and oranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And you are either distorting what I said or you didn't follow.
We did not go in to help them.
Once we destroyed their army it behooved us not to leave until they were able to defend themselves, apples and oranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And you are either distorting what I said or you didn't follow.
We did not go in to help them.
Once we destroyed their army it behooved us not to leave until they were able to defend themselves, apples and oranges.

To recap, then, your initial comment was: "we were promoting democracy".

So, in the event you had no intention of helping them, presumably this means you're of the: "we must fight them over there to prevent them attacking us" school.

Or is it something else?

This doesn't make any sense as Iraq hadn't attacked you, or even looked remotely capable of attacking you. And, surely the idea of WMDs, or even the idea that Western governments believed there were WMDs, has been totally discredited. We know this from documents in the public domain.

Just more of the same of the Sandinistas being turned into the Mongol Hordes by a department of propaganda set up by the United States around 1986. A rag-tag bunch 'promoted' as being a crack outfit.

The problem people have with this is that the United States government is making things up, and some people believe them, and they and their followers are using these flights of fancy to invade people's countries.

quote:

Nothing offends a knuckle dragging leftist more than giving a horridly oppressed people a shot at self governance