how many of you think this is still about Mr Floyd?

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no divide between americans wishing to be afforded all of the rights and privileges that being an american brings.  Anywho,  systemic racism isn't a regional phenomenon.

But Trump and his far-right propaganda won the elections in 2016 !
America is not united, and the danger of a new civil war is at hand:

America is at the brink of a new civil war. But keep your head buried in the sand.

Gratz, now you know what kind of person right wing propaganda works on.  You.

---

BTW.. the American soldiers you see worldwide are only there because the money is flowing.

That's what it means to be a professional.  Imagine how you'd feel if we stuck around shooting people for free.

[CarveTheFive]

I was hoping it was going to address the real problem which is income and wealth disparity but it seems that it really is about racism in police departments. If we fix that problem most black people will still have crummy lives because the poor are discriminated against on every account. A person without money can’t sit in the white section or the colored section of the restaurant or the bus or have an apartment or see the doctor or go to any kind of sports or entertainment event or go to college and on and on

but we’d rather scapegoat cops who make what 35-45 thousand a year? Instead of targeting the people who hoard the wealth - who profit off debt and the cycle of incarceration and uneducated masses

How many banks were burnt down?

The houses of CEOs and billionaires?

Members of Congress? Members of the Trump administration?

Let’s say we defund the police. Corporations and organizations of property owners are just going to hire private security that won’t answer to anyone because the police departments are dismantled.

The myth that America can be reformed marches on. And don’t forget to vote!

[WinterHold]

But Trump and his far-right propaganda won the elections in 2016 !
America is not united, and the danger of a new civil war is at hand:

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/06/01/is-th...civil-war/

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/20/881017611...2717055531


America is at the brink of a new civil war. But keep your head buried in the sand.

---

BTW.. the American soldiers you see worldwide are only there because the money is flowing.

(Emphasis added)

Which has pretty much been the case with all soldiers in all times and in all places throughout human history. Armies are expensive.

Boru

America have been losing wars since WW2 despite its massive gun-power. The wars it did manage to relatively win was fought by proxy -i.e others fought on its behalf-; following the Nixon doctrine which stated that America should change its military intervention to exclude soldiers on the ground and limit things to financial/assisting in defense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Doctrine

Nixon stated that "the United States would assist in the defense and developments of allies and friends", but would not "undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world."[3] This doctrine meant that each ally nation was in charge of its own security in general, but the United States would act as a nuclear umbrella when requested.

[Deesse23]

....and that has fuck nothing to do with what has been discussed.

As usual Atlass is unable to have a conversation with, because he cant stay on topic for more than two posts before going on unrelated tangents.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(Emphasis added)

Which has pretty much been the case with all soldiers in all times and in all places throughout human history. Armies are expensive.

Boru

America have been losing wars since WW2 despite its massive gun-power. The wars it did manage to relatively win was fought by proxy -i.e others fought on its behalf-; following the Nixon doctrine which stated that America should change its military intervention to exclude soldiers on the ground and limit things to financial/assisting in defense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Doctrine

Nixon stated that "the United States would assist in the defense and developments of allies and friends", but would not "undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world."[3] This doctrine meant that each ally nation was in charge of its own security in general, but the United States would act as a nuclear umbrella when requested.

The Nixon Doctrine was a financial decision - the US could save money by not deploying troops, and make money through massive armament sales. Lately, though, it’s been honored more in the breach than in the observance.

I find it odd that you would invoke this, as it undercuts your previous statements.

Boru

[WinterHold]

America have been losing wars since WW2 despite its massive gun-power. The wars it did manage to relatively win was fought by proxy -i.e others fought on its behalf-; following the Nixon doctrine which stated that America should change its military intervention to exclude soldiers on the ground and limit things to financial/assisting in defense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Doctrine

The Nixon Doctrine was a financial decision - the US could save money by not deploying troops, and make money through massive armament sales. Lately, though, it’s been honored more in the breach than in the observance.

I find it odd that you would invoke this, as it undercuts your previous statements.

Boru

How so? the Nixon Doctrine is the declaration of the death of American direct intervention with soldiers; which means that the U.S army with all its might is useless in winning wars directly.

We saw its defeat in the Vietnam war, then the Iraq war; this army is useless against guerilla tactics.

So America, to gain victories on the ground, needs another force to do the dirty work for it -such as the Afghan Mujaheddin-. It can't win with its soldiers because -let's face it-: they are mercs.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Nixon Doctrine was a financial decision - the US could save money by not deploying troops, and make money through massive armament sales. Lately, though, it’s been honored more in the breach than in the observance.

I find it odd that you would invoke this, as it undercuts your previous statements.

Boru

How so? the Nixon Doctrine is the declaration of the death of American direct intervention with soldiers; which means that the U.S army with all its might is useless in winning wars directly.

We saw its defeat in the Vietnam war, then the Iraq war; this army is useless against guerilla tactics.

So America, to gain victories on the ground, needs another force to do the dirty work for it -such as the Afghan Mujaheddin-. It can't win with its soldiers because -let's face it-: they are mercs.

lol - American soldiers are not mercenaries.

But what has any of this got to do with George Floyd?

Boru

[WinterHold]

How so? the Nixon Doctrine is the declaration of the death of American direct intervention with soldiers; which means that the U.S army with all its might is useless in winning wars directly.

We saw its defeat in the Vietnam war, then the Iraq war; this army is useless against guerilla tactics.

So America, to gain victories on the ground, needs another force to do the dirty work for it -such as the Afghan Mujaheddin-. It can't win with its soldiers because -let's face it-: they are mercs.

lol - American soldiers are not mercenaries.

But what has any of this got to do with George Floyd?

Boru

https://atheistforums.org/thread-61165-p...pid1984056

This is my original post to the OP.
Which triggered [b]The Grand Nudger'[/b]s reply:


https://atheistforums.org/thread-61165-p...pid1984057

...etc

It's funny though that you reply to me, and when I reply back to your point, you answer with "lol-what does this has to do with anything?".weird.

[Bucky Ball]

I was hoping it was going to address the real problem which is income and wealth disparity but it seems that it really is about racism in police departments. If we fix that problem most black people will still have crummy lives because the poor are discriminated against on every account. A person without money can’t sit in the white section or the colored section of the restaurant or the bus or have an apartment or see the doctor or go to any kind of sports or entertainment event or go to college and on and on

but we’d rather scapegoat cops who make what 35-45 thousand a year? Instead of targeting the people who hoard the wealth - who profit off debt and the cycle of incarceration and uneducated masses

How many banks were burnt down?

The houses of CEOs and billionaires?

Members of Congress? Members of the Trump administration?

Let’s say we defund the police. Corporations and organizations of property owners are just going to hire private security that won’t answer to anyone because the police departments are dismantled.

The myth that America can be reformed marches on. And don’t forget to vote!

^^ This. What happens when income disparities and inequality reach critical levels ? 
Civil unrest. It's happening.

[Rev. Rye]

The Nixon Doctrine was a financial decision - the US could save money by not deploying troops, and make money through massive armament sales. Lately, though, it’s been honored more in the breach than in the observance.

I find it odd that you would invoke this, as it undercuts your previous statements.

Boru

How so? the Nixon Doctrine is the declaration of the death of American direct intervention with soldiers; which means that the U.S army with all its might is useless in winning wars directly.

We saw its defeat in the Vietnam war, then the Iraq war; this army is useless against guerilla tactics.

So America, to gain victories on the ground, needs another force to do the dirty work for it -such as the Afghan Mujaheddin-. It can't win with its soldiers because -let's face it-: they are mercs.

This is less a problem with the US and more a problem with the traditional Western-style army (the Children of Hannibal), to be honest. They tend to rely on assumptions that guerrilla forces refuse to allow. You kill Hitler, the Nazis fall and WW2 in Europe is over. You kill Ali la Pointe, someone else takes his place, and eventually France loses Algeria.

The big reason that America keeps losing wars is because we keep making the mistake of fighting the children of the FLN and not the children of Hannibal. The one war we did win was against Saddam Hussein’s army, A Son of Hannibal. Everyone else, we keep making the mistake of picking on guerrilla forces with huge popular support, and if it’s not huge when we start, every time we fight back, it just becomes bigger, because the people are more likely to see them as the lesser evil. When that happens, it only ends one of two ways: you commit genocide or you get defeated.