Team America: World Police

No, I actually understand your point. I didn’t get it the way fs phrased it, but you cleared it up.

This is not sarcastic.

And when it has and does then we will revisit. Until then, my statement stands. ISIS is no where near killing as many Iraqis or neighboring countries’ citizens as Saddam.[/quote]

The longer we wait, the fewer survivors there will be to thank us for rescuing them.

That’s moot, of course – for other reasons. But I can’t share this cavalier attitude. ISIS should have been smacked down when they invaded, by US troops. Or months earlier, in Syria. The same idiots who let things get this bad are still in charge, so don’t expect things to stop getting worse.

Just whom did Odammit back in Syria again? I forget. Doesn’t matter. They were ALL bad guys.

That’s a rather generous way of describing the first great left wing bloodbath.

[quote=“Zla’od”]3. The U.S. government is a declining imperial power struggling to hold onto resources such as oil, and maintain the petrodollar as the international unit of exchange.
[/quote]

A narrative under great pressure from the fracking boom.

[quote]
It manages its own population in the same spirit that it exploits political divisions elsewhere in the world. The rhetoric of democracy and human rights is a farce.[/quote]

That’s what happens when you elect a community organizer as Messiah.

That’s a rather generous way of describing the first great left wing bloodbath.[/quote]

Read your history. American public opinion swung heavily in favor of backing the French by the time John Adams became president. Americans did not perceive the struggle as liberal vs. conservative, but as democracy vs. monarchy. Adams kept the US neutral, and the public responded by calling him a monarchist and bosom buddy of his royal friends in England. They also voted for Jefferson, a major ally of republican France, in the election of 1800. The French Revolution was itself more complex than left vs. right, despite of course most revolutionaries being considered “left” in 18th century terms. Massive inequality, corruption, constant unjust imprisonments, and many other social ills plagued royal France and made it a breeding ground of a democratic revolution. But you’re so conditioned to think in absolutes, I doubt your brain could possibly comprehend that. So quick, realign everything I just said into simplistic left/right terms. :laughing:

If we’re going to be left-vs.-righting, the entire Revolutionary War was a liberal cause against the conservative British government. The North was also quite left wing compared to the right wing South.

The only problem is Rowland considers “left wing” to be a dirty word.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]If we’re going to be left-vs.-righting, the entire Revolutionary War was a liberal cause against the conservative British government. The North was also quite left wing compared to the right wing South.
[/quote]

The American Revolution was a bourgeois uprising against an overly intrusive government that failed to respect their rights, ignored the law, and kept taxing them too much. Not many big government progressives involved. And it started in the north.

Also: Aristotle was not Belgian, the basic teaching of Buddhism is not “every man for himself” and the London Underground is not a political movement.

My point is the definition of left- and right-wing have shifted over time and are different in the context of different countries/political landscapes. It’s very small-minded to try and force the world into a Democrats-vs-Republicans framework.

(It reminds me of two things, actually. My dad asked after I’d been in Taiwan a while: “Which part is the conservatives and which is the liberals?” And a taxi driver once asked: “Which Taiwanese party does Obama like more?” Both were really silly questions.)

[quote=“rowland”]
That’s moot, of course – for other reasons. But I can’t share this cavalier attitude. ISIS should have been smacked down when they invaded, by US troops. [/quote]
Invaded from where? Their mothers’ wombs?

So you support Bashir Assad?

But you support sending in US troops to fight on the side of the bad guys? “Hi there-we’re US troops (minus Rowland, of course)and we’re here to help the bad guys beat the bad guys- no, not those bad guys, the other bad guys…wait a minute…”

You seem to be a little confused- better stick to American history- you know, when Jesus and Ronald Reagan rode in on dinosaurs to help Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin defeat the evil forces of the Enlightenment and set up a Christian Dominion. It’s all available at RedState.

If I were a Hollywood producer, you’d be watching right now as I signed a huge paycheck with your name on it. $$$

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]My point is the definition of left- and right-wing have shifted over time and are different in the context of different countries/political landscapes. It’s very small-minded to try and force the world into a Democrats-vs-Republicans framework.
[/quote]

It’s all too confusing for me. Must be all this global warming making me woozy. Who brought Democrats and Republicans into this again?

Of course the big question on everyone’s mind other than is holstering one’s messiah complex really “isolationism” is how can a country pretend to run the world when it can’t even run itself?

This. I probably swing more toward the stay out of it side, but every situation has to be looked at individually.

What pisses me off is that for all the complaining that a lot of countries do, they expect and assume most world conflicts are the responsibility of the US government. When the Ukraine situation was peeking a couple of weeks back, I was watching the BBC and the first question (and theme of the report) was What should America do? The assumption was, it’s the responsibility of the US to make sure Russia stays out of Ukraine. I see it every time the sh*t hits the fan. Then, the same group complains that American overreaches. :unamused:

Stop expecting us to be the world’s police, then you can complain. Or expect us to and be quiet. Regardless, the US gov’t is probably going to do what it wants until someone can wield some real power to get it to stop.

Because the assumption is that we will get involved. If you ask me, this whole crisis was partly engineered by the US anyway.

The appropriate question is “What will NATO do.”

But realistically, NATO is just the US and its extended family.

The Ukrain crisis was partly engineered by the US? :ponder:

Explain, please.

We didn’t demand Ukrainian independence in 1919, causing the whole thing.

The Ukrain crisis was partly engineered by the US? :ponder:

Explain, please.[/quote]

Perhaps Bernadette is insinuating that the provocative weakness the US administration showed was calculated. But for what purpose?

[quote]The Ukraine crisis was partly engineered by the US? :ponder:

Explain, please.[/quote]

Well, it wouldn’t be the first US backed coup, and it won’t be the last.

In another thread,

You see, we’re not on the same page. I respect your opinion, which you are entitled to, even if I don’t agree with it. You don’t respect opinions, unless you agree with them, and I don’t see how under these conditions we can form a dialogue if we don’t have a form of mutual respect, despite our differences. I’m sure your a nice guy and all, and I’d love to rip you to shreds online. However, I don’t have time to deploy for someone who doesn’t give a fuck.