By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 09 September 2009
Edit Thread
mrstickball said:
halogamer1989 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
 

Halogamer, would you kindly shut the hell up? I'm sick of you sayin that everything you disagree with is just some bullshit that's typical of libs. It's the most annoying thing ever, and it makes you look like a complete idiot. I never said wars were won in a month or two, but when they're over, they're over. They're won when they're won. The Civil War didn't include Reconstruction, just the 4 years of fighting that went on. Going from a colonial era America to a modern superpower wasn't a war, that was just the natural growth of our country. You have the most incredibly odd ideas for what a war are, and it baffles me to how you come up with some of them.

No, I don't believe I've talked to anyone in OEF or OIF, although I wouldn't be surprised if I talked to one of them without knowing it. You can't argue that Iraq somehow turned out well. We went in, had thousands of our soldiers die, killed and/or displaced thousands of Iraqis, spent over a trillion dollars (even a trillion isn't something to be taken lightly), and still haven't done anything substantial with the country. It may, with an optimistic viewpoint, finally see stabilization after half a dozen years of occupation. This could have been accomplished more quickly, and I don't see it being accomplished all that easily anyways. What happens when we leave Iraq? Democracy kicks in, the people are happy, and Iraq is forever a paragon of the Middle East? Do you really believe that some limited occupation will be fruitful for Iraq when the previous years weren't? Rebuilding Germany and Japan is nothing like destroying and then rebuilding Iraq.

Roosebelt did business with the Germans (not sure why you just called them Nazis, take a history class) and the Japanese, but mainly because he had no real reason to do otherwise. As it was seen by Americans for a while, this was yet another European war (similar to WW1). America had never been attacked, and had no reason to get involved. Once America had been attacked, or adequately threatened, they declared war. It didn't matter whether Eisenhower was fighting or not, he wasn't the president. I think some liberals in the west were fond of (and possibly still are fond of) socialist ideas, but Hitler also proposed extreme fascism. Few in the west supported that.

I'm sorry, maybe I will get informed. Maybe I'll get so informed that I'll agree with you on everything, because that's what doing research basically is. Thank god we have geniuses like you around to spew cliches and create nonsense points to frustrate others.

I never said American democracy was the goal for Iraq and Afghanistan.  I was referring to the overall boots on the ground mission and length thereof.  For the war part, yes, the US was not at war during the AoConf but it had several small scale revolutions that were put down, i.e. Whiskey Rebellion.  That is what I was comparing Iraq c. 2009 to as to a 2050 Iraq.  Will it blossom, maybe.  Will it go to hell, maybe as well.  On that I have a sense of why you are against the wars.  However, you have to look at it from not 1 perspective but from all perspectives including Republican and military.  I do Dem research all the time.  I don't want to argue with anyone but I do want to have a good debate in which ALL can learn from.

Now on the WWII point, let me clarify.  In war, generals and JCOS advise the Pres, not the other way around.  So Eisenhower and US troops (of which my great-grandfather was one - CB WWII) won the war as well as Roosevelt/Truman.  When I said Nazis that is what the Germans were from '33 to '45.  I like debating w/ you Montana as you are kind of like me but from the oppositer side of the spectrum which is OK.  Like I said before I am not trying to recruit you for the GOP

 

Edit:  Sorry 4 the double.

Actually, Montana isn't from the opposite side of the spectrum. Your very authoritarian and moderately right on economic issues. Montana is right of center, with more libertarian ideologies when it comes to social values (as is Kasz, with myself being extreme right on economic issues, and moderate on social issues). The problem is that we can't really argue from a right/left or lib/conservative standpoint because the fact is that few people truly fit that mold. There are a lot of right-wingers that are more libertarian like the GOP was many years ago before it got its  crazy neo-con streak going. In fact, it may surprise you that at one point, Republicans were non-interventionist.

Not nessisarily true.

I think socialism is a good idea... considering four issues.

 

1) Can the government do it better.  ( Yes sometimes they can.)

2) Is it paid for fairly.  (By taxing everyone proportionally.  Not just "Well we'll pay for it by raising the price on junkfood... or rich people... or steel tariffs)

3) Will it actually work?  If the government can do it better... but it's still going to be broken... I don't want any part of it.  It's nearly impossible to reform government entities.

4) Will said act infringe on peoples freedom.