Sign in to follow this  

Why yes Timmy, US should pull out of South Korea

This topic is 1739 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Personally I blame Republicans for this,

There it is. The standard Democrat blame-game. Christ, you people just never take any kind of responsibility whatsoever. Always someone else's fault.

Do you have an actual argument, with evidence, that can disprove his point? As it stands, you're just engaging in more partisan rhetoric yourself, which given that partisan rhetoric is what you're quoting as a bad thing seems a little hypocritical...

Nah, he actually has a valid point. The current political climate in this country is to blame one group of pinheads over another. Basically, whether you elect Dem or Repub, it's the same pile of crap. These are the following issues that neither party will touch because they'll just piss themselves:

- Abortion
- NAFTA and the effects of "free trade" on industrial centers of this country
- The current divorce rate and the effects on our society, from the little kids to the old
- The current way that we tax citizens
- Massive cases of illegal immigration
- Massive violations of civil rights of the people in this country under the guise of protecting them
- The next big bubble of education loans that are over 1 trillion dollars (when that pops, we're all fucked twice over since '08)
- The current wealth-transfer schemes that permit individuals to outsource responsibility for their future (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security)
- The future effects of a shrinking supply of oil, growing demand and what it will do to our economy
- The debt. It's massive. It's growing. And when that goes down, we'll need divine intervention to get out of this mess quickly.

Instead we focus on the easy fluffy stuff:
- TEH GHEYZ (the Republicans publicly vilify them and the Democrats are running around as if they're saints on this issue)
- Tax cuts. To whom? How much? If you lean one way, you hate capitalism, the other and you hate the poor.
- Transfer of wealth. Some wanna give it to those that qualify as "poor" and others to defense contractors. Again, go one way and you hate the poor, go another and you're Karl Marx (I saw both sides of both coins, neither are very shiny).

And yes, I do like the way this country was run in the past in terms of the scope of the federal government. George Washington warned against political parties and entangling alliances... yeah... they don't teach that in our schools.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to add:

1. Policies which allow major industrial interests sole discretion to decide how much pollution matters and whom it affects, which often has had devastating consequences for groups of people who can't really fight those interests on their own. When these people try to organize against industrial interests to stop them from, say, dumping poisonous chemical waste products into their groundwater, the only viable way that they can do so is to agitate for government regulation where they are, *gasp*, stymied by certain politicians. I won't say it's always Republicans, because that would be inaccurate, but Republicans are certainly overrepresented in this opposition.

Yes, very true. And just like the Republicans, the Democrats have been their own corporate whores. They just do these things... differently...

2. Reapportioning the impacts from environmental policies, as above, to groups with the least ability to deal with them or to protect themselves from such apportionment. This one is far more bipartisanly popular, but on environmental issues in particular Republican have again been overrepresented in protecting polluters.

I agree.

On the flip-side of this issue is the damning of the logging industry (or frankly any industry) by the Dems and other left-wing organizations, which closed factories and eliminated high-paying industrial jobs in the name of preserving nature. When in reality, you could have a win-win arrangement.

The book called "Collapse" by Jared Diamond is pretty good at pointing out the crap from both sides.

It's not a Republicans-only club, nor is it some cabal of villains trying to specifically destroy the world for some nefarious purpose. But this is one of the issues which features a pretty clear and consistent partisan divide, with Republicans making explicit policy moves which result in more and worse pollution more often and at higher per-party-figure rates than any other political party in the US.

And there's another aspect that's missing from the national debate. Human nature. People are greedy. I'm greedy. But it's just easier to draw lines and complain.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread went into a weird place.

I'm amazed no one mentioned Hitler yet... oh wait...

Gonna refill my glass of wine biggrin.png .

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The operative word in this case is during times of peace. During the 90's Saddam lived relatively untouched.

US strikes continue against Iraq during the 90's, including assassination attempts, and half a million Iraqis were indirectly killed through the 90's by US instigated blockades of medical supplies (which Albright is quoted in hindsight as saying was the right thing to do, despite it not actually working as intended, to overthrow Saddam). That's not very peaceful!

The justification is that US is at war with al-Qaeda, therefore it's ok to take out their operatives and leaders before they can kill themselves

Al Qaeda is a category, not a country, which means all the existing legal definitions of 'war' don't apply (which doesnt stop the US making new laws internally
To fit the situation though). This is a 'war' in the same way that the 'war on drugs' is...

US has been asking governments to publicly take responsibility for their killings?

Yes. One reason they want wikileaks gone so badly is the outing of stories like this.
The full extent of US killings (and kidnappings, etc) is unknown because of this.

That's... not true. Unless you have a link to a document that actually states that the US fed can just off random US citizens as they see fit, then this must be some left-wing conspiracy theory.

It's just a quick google away! This should have been a major news story!
Obama has already had US citizens executed without trial.

Chile's 9/11,

Please don't tell me that you're a truther.
The date has a different significance in Chile.
But while we're at it, the majority of people think that there's something fishy about 9/11, just as with JFK, etc. Healthy skepticism is quite a bit different to being the guy that puts up the "THE PLANES WERE HOLOGRAMS" videos though :-P

... I take it you don't know the background reasons behind what caused the Arab Spring, yes?

I'm aware of the Arab spring, yes, but Lybia and Syria weren't just the masses rising up against their leaders like in Tunsinia or Egypt.
In Lybia, the shady shadow government that was instantly endorsed by western powers before anyone knew who they were, were funded by those western powers. We had special forces on the ground working against the dictator, and our planes overhead -- that makes it very different to the start of the spring!
Instead of a 3 month war followed by a civil war that we're stuck in for a decade, we hijacked the Arab spring to work as our own army - a few months of bombing, an execution that we can't be blamed for, and our pre-selected government installed, without the need to even be seen invading. That was much smarter than Iraq...

But... I don't get why you're dragging these facts out. How does this add to the original post?

it was in response to your claims that the US can't kill people outside of a war, which is demonstrably very false.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this