"they didn’t help us with Normandy as an example"
Damn, I guess most nations on earth can't expect much from the Trumpian US then. Especially not that nation that were in Normandy but happened to be on the other side of the fence.
Snoopy said:
ISIS came about after we got involved with the middle east. The truth is, the world is fucked up as it is. Why should we bring ourselves down with them? We need to worry about our interests first. All we should do is kick Turkey out of NATO, implement sanctions and never get involved with these useless wars. We should only use our military might to protect us and our Allie nations that truly has our back. |
So protecting the Kurds, who helped us bring ISIS to its needs doesn't garner our support. Instead we leave and give Turkey and Russia free reign in the area. I am guessing our allies is looking at this and probably thinking, at this point in time, the US is no better then a 2 time hooker. I am sure Iran and North Korea will look at this and nood believing the word of the US is worth as much as a wooden nickel.
Last edited by Machiavellian - on 10 October 2019
Isn't it ironic that people complain about our military spending, but the moment we pull troops from random foreign issues that are not directly related to us, we become horrible human beings for not being further involved?
Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.
| Baalzamon said: Isn't it ironic that people complain about our military spending, but the moment we pull troops from random foreign issues that are not directly related to us, we become horrible human beings for not being further involved? |
It's only ironic if you have no humanity.
Also how is this a "random foreign issue" lmao ok then
Last edited by tsogud - on 10 October 2019 
| Baalzamon said: Isn't it ironic that people complain about our military spending, but the moment we pull troops from random foreign issues that are not directly related to us, we become horrible human beings for not being further involved? |
No.
Like most things, there is a way to do things well and a way to do things poorly. Those who criticize military spending are typically not in favor of sudden withdrawal of United States troops without adequate infrastructure and coordination required to ensure that these areas don't turn into a genocidal mess.
tsogud said:
It's only ironic if you have no humanity. |
I hate responses like this. Blanket statements that somebody is one thing solely because they do or don't agree with ONE thing. It's similar to those who say anybody who voted for Trump is a racist POS. I didn't vote for the dude, but it irritates me to no end when people apply this statement to everybody who did.
I'm not saying I have an answer about what is right or wrong. I'm not even saying I know whether we should specifically be involved in this situation.
But if it comes down to "ignoring a situation like this means you have no humanity"...then I must ask. What is the limit? If there are 3 people tortured in Guatemala, do we as a country have a moral obligation to get involved? What about if 13 people die of a rare disease in Africa? Do we have an obligation to get involved in that?
I have no idea what the limit is, because I don't necessarily have any issue with us helping others out, but I'm asking this simply because of your response.
At what point, per your guidelines, does a country who won't help in a situation outside of their country have no humanity?
There absolutely MUST be a limit. As much as some people may want to think we can, we absolutely cannot get involved in every other foreign issue there is. So what is the stopping point? 1 death...5 deaths, 100 deaths?
What about if the people we help wind up forming an organization that winds up murdering 1000s of people in 10 years. Does that mean that retroactively the people that helped them are actually inhumane? Is that simply not our problem until 10 years from now and we are just obligated to help whoever appears to be most innocent at any point in time?
Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.
Baalzamon said:
I hate responses like this. Blanket statements that somebody is one thing solely because they do or don't agree with ONE thing. It's similar to those who say anybody who voted for Trump is a racist POS. I didn't vote for the dude, but it irritates me to no end when people apply this statement to everybody who did. I'm not saying I have an answer about what is right or wrong. I'm not even saying I know whether we should specifically be involved in this situation. But if it comes down to "ignoring a situation like this means you have no humanity"...then I must ask. What is the limit? If there are 3 people tortured in Guatemala, do we as a country have a moral obligation to get involved? What about if 13 people die of a rare disease in Africa? Do we have an obligation to get involved in that? I have no idea what the limit is, because I don't necessarily have any issue with us helping others out, but I'm asking this simply because of your response. At what point, per your guidelines, does a country who won't help in a situation outside of their country have no humanity? There absolutely MUST be a limit. As much as some people may want to think we can, we absolutely cannot get involved in every other foreign issue there is. So what is the stopping point? 1 death...5 deaths, 100 deaths? What about if the people we help wind up forming an organization that winds up murdering 1000s of people in 10 years. Does that mean that retroactively the people that helped them are actually inhumane? Is that simply not our problem until 10 years from now and we are just obligated to help whoever appears to be most innocent at any point in time? |
If you hate it so much you should probably stop doing it then as your initial statement was an "only this or the other" type of an attack against people who complain about military spending but also don't like how we pulled out our troops in this situation.
| Baalzamon said: Isn't it ironic that people complain about our military spending, but the moment we pull troops from random foreign issues that are not directly related to us, we become horrible human beings for not being further involved? |
I remember another president who withdrew troops from a region that was not stabilize and the new president who was at the time a candidate stated that he created ISIS by making such a move. Oh well, I guess history seems to repeat itself.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/index.html
Personally not sure what you mean by random foreign issue but maybe you have not kept up with the news.
Baalzamon said:
I hate responses like this. Blanket statements that somebody is one thing solely because they do or don't agree with ONE thing. It's similar to those who say anybody who voted for Trump is a racist POS. I didn't vote for the dude, but it irritates me to no end when people apply this statement to everybody who did. I'm not saying I have an answer about what is right or wrong. I'm not even saying I know whether we should specifically be involved in this situation. But if it comes down to "ignoring a situation like this means you have no humanity"...then I must ask. What is the limit? If there are 3 people tortured in Guatemala, do we as a country have a moral obligation to get involved? What about if 13 people die of a rare disease in Africa? Do we have an obligation to get involved in that? I have no idea what the limit is, because I don't necessarily have any issue with us helping others out, but I'm asking this simply because of your response. At what point, per your guidelines, does a country who won't help in a situation outside of their country have no humanity? There absolutely MUST be a limit. As much as some people may want to think we can, we absolutely cannot get involved in every other foreign issue there is. So what is the stopping point? 1 death...5 deaths, 100 deaths? What about if the people we help wind up forming an organization that winds up murdering 1000s of people in 10 years. Does that mean that retroactively the people that helped them are actually inhumane? Is that simply not our problem until 10 years from now and we are just obligated to help whoever appears to be most innocent at any point in time? |
Simple question, were the Kurds our allies or not. If this is how the US help secure our allies. So, is it Humane to move out of a region when we know the day we withdraw our troops those same allies would be slaughtered. Its not like it was a mystery what would happen. Who knows, maybe if Trump could build a nice Tower in Syria, then the outcome would be different.
Machiavellian said:
So protecting the Kurds, who helped us bring ISIS to its needs doesn't garner our support. Instead we leave and give Turkey and Russia free reign in the area. I am guessing our allies is looking at this and probably thinking, at this point in time, the US is no better then a 2 time hooker. I am sure Iran and North Korea will look at this and nood believing the word of the US is worth as much as a wooden nickel. |
Syria isn't our ally and neither is Turkey the way things are going. We will Protect countries like UK, Canada, ect because they have military power that can protect us as well.
Also, here is Rand Paul explaining the situation very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsuqFnLV2RY
Last edited by Snoopy - on 10 October 2019
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
