(June 14, 2010 at 7:55 am)Dotard Wrote: And now he just lost my vote.

Puppies as a National Symbol? Whadda wimp.

He's probably just making a point about the tough guy impression that the US (and tons of other countries) like to give off.

Quote:Saddam's Iraq was a bully. If this wimp had his way Saddam would still be running amuck and most likely invaded Saudi Arabia next.

How do you know that? If the Saudis invited the US into SA to help defend them from Iraq, maybe he would offer military help. Or not, I really don't know.

Quote:America had it's history of passive neutrality. What happened? The world's bullies ran amuck. America became the big-kid on the block and fights the bullies who are tring to push around the rest of the world.
Does the rest of the civilized world really want the U.S. to pull all it's might back home and 'stay out of it' when the real bullies start carving up their lands?

Who said anything in that video about not protecting US land? I didn't get the idea there that he wants some sort of total disbanding of all military.

Quote:This girly man wants America to weaken it's might. Without strength America would be unable to come to the aid of those who need it.

Where do you see weakness? You don't have to be a bully to be strong. And shouldn't the US maybe come to its own aid, fixing its own backyard to improve life for its citizens, before spending shitloads of money helping one shitty theocracy fight another one? Or at least not spend so much on others? I don't know to what extent Dusty would or wouldn't help other countries militarily if they were to request it. I know what I would do most of the time though.

Quote:Are their any here who thinks Saddam would not still be in control of Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia if America were to be as weak as this man proposes we should be?

I hate middle eastern politics. Every fucking country there is a theocracy. Someone hand me the button, yeah that button! Just kidding. There is no button. And my mouse ones don't work for this purpose. I've tried.

Seriously though, it sounds like he just wants to stop the unnecessary overseas stuff that causes a lot of killing and suffering of people, and the spending of tons of money that could be made better use of.

Quote:Saddam's Iraq was a bully. If this wimp had his way Saddam would still be running amuck and most likely invaded Saudi Arabia next.

You say that as if it's bad thing,even if true.

Seriously; who gives a rat's rectum? Not this little black duck.( apart from the oil of course.)

I've never really understood the mind set of many 'ordinary' Americans who seem to have appointed themselves World Police.

Innate American jingoism has helped make the US the most powerful,feared and hated nation on earth.

Quote:Does the rest of the civilized world really want the U.S. to pull all it's might back home and 'stay out of it' when the real bullies start carving up their lands?

Well, I think most people just want the US to mind it's own fucking business. However,my view is far more pragmatic: Neither government policy nor wars are based on moral principle,but always on vested interest. Whenever US troops are killing foreigners in their own country,one needs to ask cui bono? (who benefits) A numerically large minority of Americans always benefit from US wars in many ways.

Cynical politicians on all sides always take a non existent moral high ground to gull our gormless young men into going to a foreign country to kill their gormless young men. Those in charge remain in the rear with the gear,or thousands of miles away under a few yards of reinforced concrete.

(June 14, 2010 at 2:41 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote: He's probably just making a point about the tough guy impression that the US (and tons of other countries) like to give off.

And he would like to replace it with what? Wimpy puppies. Easily squashed puppies. I'll vote for "Death from Above" any day.

Quote:How do you know that?

History tends to repeat itself? He rolled into Kuwait like another in history rolled into Poland. I supported kicking his ass back into Iraq from the beginning. Even if this girlie-man did also, with the military he proposes we have, we probably couldn't have.

Quote: If the Saudis invited the US into SA to help defend them from Iraq, maybe he would offer military help. Or not, I really don't know.

With what?! Few thousand men? Saddam had over a million soldiers. We need might to offer any meaningful assistance.

Quote:Who said anything in that video about not protecting US land? I didn't get the idea there that he wants some sort of total disbanding of all military.

Yes who did say anything about total disbanding of all military forces? Who said anything about not protecting our land. I know I didn't mention either of these things. I said the dipshit was advocating pussifying the U.S. and that would make America vunerable and uneffective at keeping the real bullies off the countries in that hemispheres' backs.

Quote:Where do you see weakness? You don't have to be a bully to be strong.

If I don't see strength I see weakness. You have to be strong to defend yourself and others against bullies.

Quote:And shouldn't the US maybe come to its own aid, fixing its own backyard to improve life for its citizens, before spending shitloads of money helping one shitty theocracy fight another one?

Kuwait wasn't a 'shitty theocracy'. Neither was Iraq. And of right now, neither is Afghanistan.

Quote: I don't know to what extent Dusty would or wouldn't help other countries militarily if they were to request it. I know what I would do most of the time though.

Dusty would have a military worth a shit even if he wanted to give 100% military support. You know, like if Mexico was invaded by Nazis or Aliens or something.

Quote:I hate middle eastern politics. Every fucking country there is a theocracy.

Wrong! Click here and edumacate thyself.

Quote: Someone hand me the button, yeah that button!

[youtube]QX_4Q6WfZNY[/youtube]

Quote:Seriously though, it sounds like he just wants to stop the unnecessary overseas stuff that causes a lot of killing and suffering of people, and the spending of tons of money that could be made better use of.

You think all that "unnecessary overseas stuff" does not prevent a lot more killing and suffering of people than it causes? Shall we pull out of Afghan and leave all those woman in the hands of the Taliban? With the military DustyBunny wants the U.S. to have we would have no choice. We would probably at the LEAST choose between Iraq and Afghan. Which do you think we would choose?
(Hint: The oil is in Iraq.)

Padriac Wrote:You say that as if it's bad thing,even if true.

It could have easily become a bad thing. This other similar event in history nearly took over the world.

Whenever an empire makes a land grab, you can be fairly certain they will grow more powerful once they have effectively proven they own that land, and begun using both its resources and population to increase their overall production capacity.

Quote:Seriously; who gives a rat's rectum? Not this little black duck.( apart from the oil of course.)

I do... the United States made its point (if the point was only to be a show of what happens when you piss us off)... but then they have failed to either annex the land or retreat. This leaves them in a position where either they do not know rightly what they want to do... or at least it likely seems this way to their enemies and us alike... who likely sense this as a weakness and have pressed on with certainty whilst the United States doesn't make a decision. And since it has taken so long now... their enemies might just follow them home.

And if there is one thing that would damage America politically and productively: it is a war on their soil.

Quote:I've never really understood the mind set of many 'ordinary' Americans who seem to have appointed themselves World Police.

It is a bit silly... but surely you can see how this might work to the government's advantage?

Quote:Innate American jingoism has helped make the US the most powerful,feared and hated nation on earth.

Most powerful? I am sorry... but that is China. The USA is still very strong of course. Most feared? I think that might be North Korea... but I can see America being seen in that light to be advantageous to it. Most hated? Depends on where you look. If it is true, then that is a poor place to be occupying politically... and it would be quite easy for them to be "dogpiled", especially if some of their old enemies (Ie: Russia) and the ancient powerhouse that is China were to be involved against the United States.

(June 14, 2010 at 10:55 pm)Dotard Wrote: And he would like to replace it with what? Wimpy puppies. Easily squashed puppies. I'll vote for "Death from Above" any day.

Why do you assume that he wouldn't fully protect the US? He only refers to other countries in the video. Maybe the friendly wimpy puppies turn into fierce, snarling wolves with sharp fangs ready to rip out the jugulars of anyone who tries to harm one of their own.

Quote:

Quote:Who said anything in that video about not protecting US land? I didn't get the idea there that he wants some sort of total disbanding of all military.

Yes who did say anything about total disbanding of all military forces? Who said anything about not protecting our land. I know I didn't mention either of these things. I said the dipshit was advocating pussifying the U.S. and that would make America vunerable and uneffective at keeping the real bullies off the countries in that hemispheres' backs.

Just because he advocates not being a bully, does not somehow equal not defending one's own part of whatever hemisphere. As far as neighbouring countries go, in that same hemisphere, if there was ever a need, probably the whole hemisphere would team up to protect itself from a hemispherical sized onslaught.

Quote:If I don't see strength I see weakness. You have to be strong to defend yourself and others against bullies.

He is not saying not to defend oneself. At all. As for defending others, do you really expect the US to save the whole world? Maybe he would help other countries in some types of circumstances. Or not. Can't know without asking him.

Most of the time, in my opinion, countries should take care of their own people's problems, before messing with other people's in ways that cost huge sums of money as well as kill lots of people.

Quote:Kuwait wasn't a 'shitty theocracy'. Neither was Iraq. And of right now, neither is Afghanistan.

They still look and smell like theocracies to me, even if they do have additional, more official, labels.

Quote:

Quote:Seriously though, it sounds like he just wants to stop the unnecessary overseas stuff that causes a lot of killing and suffering of people, and the spending of tons of money that could be made better use of.

You think all that "unnecessary overseas stuff" does not prevent a lot more killing and suffering of people than it causes? Shall we pull out of Afghan and leave all those woman in the hands of the Taliban? With the military DustyBunny wants the U.S. to have we would have no choice. We would probably at the LEAST choose between Iraq and Afghan. Which do you think we would choose?
(Hint: The oil is in Iraq.)

I hope you're not mentioning the women's thing just because I am one, and because you know I sympathize strongly with women stuck under muslim rule. There are many many unjust things in the world outside of the US, and while that is a big one, it is by no means the only one.

He is certainly not someone who doesn't give a shit though. This video is about the muslim treatment of women (and the way they freak over blaspheming mohammed):
[youtube]JGmapi4N-eM[/youtube]

Speaking of women, this is a good segue to pop in a video I made with a neat kaleidoscope special effect. I used Dusty's song, Funky Tongue, as the background sound. From what I can make out of the lyrics (I'm really bad at lyrics - sounds blend together to my ears), this should secure him most of the female vote throughout the states. Hahaha, I'm such a pervert... by the way, still waiting to see that video of you jizzing god Dotard, just a friendly reminder.
[youtube]Vcg1empSA-c[/youtube]

Quote:Most powerful? I am sorry... but that is China.

Really? Oh, OK, make that just most feared and hated.

Quote:It is a bit silly... but surely you can see how this might work to the government's advantage?

Of course, that was my point.

Quote:Whenever an empire makes a land grab, you can be fairly certain they will grow more powerful once they have effectively proven they own that land, and begun using both its resources and population to increase their overall production capacity.

Well yeah,the US has been doing that for about 200 years.

By the time of the second world war, the US had the greatest productive capacity in human history,and that's why it won more than any other single factor.[in my opinion]

Quote:I hope you're not mentioning the women's thing just because I am one, and because you know I sympathize strongly with women stuck under muslim rule.

Yes I did. So answer the question. Do you advocate U.S. pull out of Afghan? Leave the women to their masters because, you know, It costs to much to fight for their liberation. More so because they are on the ''other side'' of the world. Why should America concern itself with oppressed women in a foreign land who look and smell like theocracies?

Quote:Well yeah,the US has been doing that for about 200 years.

What lands has America 'grabbed' in the last 200 years?

(June 15, 2010 at 8:23 am)Dotard Wrote: What lands has America 'grabbed' in the last 200 years?

The most important land grabs:

1845 US annexes Texas, with the support of the majority of Texans. This is dubiously legal since Texas is a breakaway province of Mexico, and its independence is recognized by some countries (US, France) but not others (Mexico, Britain).

1846-48 The annexation of Texas leads directly to the Mexican-American War, and one of the biggest land grabs in history. Following the defeat of Mexico and the occupation of Mexico City, the US takes Utah, Nevada, California, Colorado, New Mexico and most of Arizona.

1893 US agricultural interests backed up by US marines help to overthrow the monarcharchy in Hawaii. The situation becomes very unstable, leading to the annexation of Hawaii in 1898.

1898 Spanish-American War. The main issue is Cuban independence, but the US ends up grabbing Puerto Rico, Guam and the Phillipines. The Philippines is now independent; Guam and Puerto Rico aren't.

1899 As part of a colonial carve-up in the South Pacific, the US acquires American Samoa.

1903 The US sponsors the indepedence movement in Panama. As a result, America gains control of the Panamanian isthmus, and builds the Panama canal. The Canal Zone remains in American hands until the 1970s.

In addition, of course, there are the very numerous internal land grabs- whites seizing land that belonged to the Indians.

Check out the movie The End of Poverty? On Netflix. It really shows how colonialism and capitalism work together and how the rich country's are rich and how they became rich, on the backs of slave or cheap labor.

(June 15, 2010 at 8:23 am)Dotard Wrote:

Quote:I hope you're not mentioning the women's thing just because I am one, and because you know I sympathize strongly with women stuck under muslim rule.

Yes I did. So answer the question. Do you advocate U.S. pull out of Afghan? Leave the women to their masters because, you know, It costs to much to fight for their liberation. More so because they are on the ''other side'' of the world. Why should America concern itself with oppressed women in a foreign land who look and smell like theocracies?

If your question assumes that the US is there to help the women, I won't bother answering. But even if they were, I still think they should pull out, and that in most circumstances priority should be given to taking care of one's own country. Choosing to help others in their battles has to be thought out, and after considering things like effectiveness of the help you want to offer, and the financial cost, maybe it would be worthwhile to help, or maybe not. In your suggested scenario of military invasion to secure the freedom of muslim women, what are the plans? Slaughter all the males? That's not very good. And what of afterwards? What would you set up as the new way of living? Would it be forced on the women who don't want to change (their daughters will likely want to change, but maybe they themselves don't)? The best way for real change is communications. The internet, the media, personal messages, social networks, etc. In fact, the dominoes have started falling.