RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years

RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cloudboy -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/3/2013 8:27:48 PM)
Your question is entirely unrelated to the title of the thread. ------ I have a friend in the State Department. Here's what he's said. When the US is dragged into a conflict, it does pretty well. (WWII, Kuwait, The initial invasion of Afghanistan.) But when we meddle, the results are not too good: (IRAQ, Nation Building in Afghanistan, Toppling the government of Afghanistan under Reagan / arming the future Taliban, the coup in IRAN, the Coup in Chile, the coup in Guatemala, arming psychopaths in El Salvadore, and fighting North Vietnam.) The US is exceptional in one way: we can project force almost anywhere around the world. No other nation has this capability. The UN in not a reliable peace keeper or police man b/c the security counsel is often divided. Obama is probably correct to step back from Syria and solicit what other nations and Congress want to do -- b/c it is not clear what might come from our intervention.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/3/2013 8:27:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I am actually finding myself a bit surprised by just how shamelessly low they are going so fast. Debbie Wasserman Schultz actually showed up on CNN and invoked the Holocaust. Maybe somebody needs to brief her on how that Arab Spring thingie has worked out for Christians in Egypt? Well, I wouldn't expect anything less from the Jewish community. It usually benefits them to pull the "victim" card. But quite frankly, until Israel is actually intentionally attacked in an organized way - in other words, not like the stray Katyusha - I'd prefer the Jews shut up and not try pushing us into this before it's required. Fuck their moralizing. I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint, not moral. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, Israel has already made an attack or two of their own in Syria and I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with saving babies. In my opinion, they put themselves in the crosshairs and been damn lucky it hasn't cost them any more than it could have. Don't expect me to buy the whole "moral" stance now.

JeffBC -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/3/2013 8:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The United States is morally distinct and exceptional among the nations of the Earth, and acting as a police force on the world stage, including within the boundaries of other sovereign nations, is our proper role. Discuss Narcissistic swill.

TheHeretic -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/3/2013 8:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Your question seem entirely unrelated to the title of the thread. I dunno. The people I thought would get the comedy reference seem to have done so. Maybe check the settings on your sense of humor? You are absolutely right in terms of force projection, and we can do it in several places at once. I'm ok with using it, under sufficient provocation or threat. I'm ok with backing a friend's play too, (though I do have a "too drunk and deserves a little asskicking" exception on that). We aren't in either place here.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/3/2013 8:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I almost wonder if he doesn't want it to fail, so he can dodge the whole situation, and go back to blaming others for what he isn't very good at. I don't know about the "blaming others" part but I think you're closer than you realize with the "dodge the whole situation" part.

Politesub53 -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 3:34:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic As I may have pointed out before, this President isn't nearly as good as the last one, when it comes to getting Congress (or our allies for that matter) to dance along to his little tune. I almost wonder if he doesn't want it to fail, so he can dodge the whole situation, and go back to blaming others for what he isn't very good at. Your previous President, was a lying shit, along with Tony Blair. The agenda to remove Saddam was always on the cards from day one. Both men clearly knew how dubious the intel was. That is beyond dispute. Personally, I prefer the route Obama and Cameron have taken, letting the politicians have a say on the issue. The question for both the US and UK should not be did Assad use chemical weapons, as it is beyond doubt he has, given they have been used on a dozen occassions. We need to ask the following, none of which can be answered by a simple yes/no imho. 1) Would the civilians in Syria be any better off after a strike ? << Probably, at least in the short term 2) Would the West be happy to see an Islamist regime in Syria << Probably not, especially on the Israeli borders 3) Should we retaliate as a deterence to other nations against using chemical weapons << NO, in my view each case should be treated on its own merits I keep reading about letting the UN powers act........ In actuality the only powers that could act, are the same ones that always veto any action...The security counsel. The middle east is split on the issue, our friends the Saudis and the Qataris are arming the Islamists. The Russians are arming Assad. Simply put, there are no easy answers, since none will produce an outcome acceptable to all sides.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 6:24:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic As I may have pointed out before, this President isn't nearly as good as the last one, when it comes to getting Congress (or our allies for that matter) to dance along to his little tune. I almost wonder if he doesn't want it to fail, so he can dodge the whole situation, and go back to blaming others for what he isn't very good at. Your previous President, was a lying shit, along with Tony Blair. The agenda to remove Saddam was always on the cards from day one. Both men clearly knew how dubious the intel was. That is beyond dispute. Personally, I prefer the route Obama and Cameron have taken, letting the politicians have a say on the issue. The question for both the US and UK should not be did Assad use chemical weapons, as it is beyond doubt he has, given they have been used on a dozen occassions. We need to ask the following, none of which can be answered by a simple yes/no imho. 1) Would the civilians in Syria be any better off after a strike ? << Probably, at least in the short term 2) Would the West be happy to see an Islamist regime in Syria << Probably not, especially on the Israeli borders 3) Should we retaliate as a deterence to other nations against using chemical weapons << NO, in my view each case should be treated on its own merits I keep reading about letting the UN powers act........ In actuality the only powers that could act, are the same ones that always veto any action...The security counsel. The middle east is split on the issue, our friends the Saudis and the Qataris are arming the Islamists. The Russians are arming Assad. Simply put, there are no easy answers, since none will produce an outcome acceptable to all sides. Should the livelihood of Syrian civilians really be an international concern? I'm not sure it should be. Without there being UN resolutions, who truly has the authority to go into another sovereign nation and make changes? It would be one thing if there was a "mentor" relationship between Syria and another country. The mentor country would have that authority, but who does that? You can say we're doing this for the good of the civilians, but at what point is the "good of the civilians" not enough to draw intervention? Do we stay out of Darfur because there were no chemical weapons used (Syria), or the Air Force wasn't being used (Libya)? Do we turn a blind eye to the government murder of Irani civilians who are protesting the evils of their own government? Does the US not having universal coverage, single payer, national healthcare, etc. constitute a large enough breach of human rights violations to constitute an intervention? Without a UN resolution authorizing the international community to get involved, I don't see there being any authorization for the international community to get involved. What we could do is deploy our troops to our allies and station them so as to protect their borders. Once tension has calmed, we can draw down to current levels. That would also prevent arms from getting into the wrong hands since we are only arming our own military. We aren't arming the rebels to have them turn around and use them against us (Afghanistan anti-communist rebels end up being the al Qaeda we hunt down). We aren't installing a puppet government that we eventually go back and remove (Iraq), or simply oppose (Iran). If one of our ally countries is attacked, we already have presence and can repel the invasion and protect their borders. Who has the authority, other than the UN, to dictate how Assad (mis)treats his citizens?

RacerJim -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 6:52:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic As I may have pointed out before, this President isn't nearly as good as the last one, when it comes to getting Congress (or our allies for that matter) to dance along to his little tune. I almost wonder if he doesn't want it to fail, so he can dodge the whole situation, and go back to blaming others for what he isn't very good at. Your previous President, was a lying shit, along with Tony Blair. The agenda to remove Saddam was always on the cards from day one. Both men clearly knew how dubious the intel was. That is beyond dispute. Personally, I prefer the route Obama and Cameron have taken, letting the politicians have a say on the issue. The question for both the US and UK should not be did Assad use chemical weapons, as it is beyond doubt he has, given they have been used on a dozen occassions. We need to ask the following, none of which can be answered by a simple yes/no imho. 1) Would the civilians in Syria be any better off after a strike ? << Probably, at least in the short term 2) Would the West be happy to see an Islamist regime in Syria << Probably not, especially on the Israeli borders 3) Should we retaliate as a deterence to other nations against using chemical weapons << NO, in my view each case should be treated on its own merits I keep reading about letting the UN powers act........ In actuality the only powers that could act, are the same ones that always veto any action...The security counsel. The middle east is split on the issue, our friends the Saudis and the Qataris are arming the Islamists. The Russians are arming Assad. Simply put, there are no easy answers, since none will produce an outcome acceptable to all sides. Our previous President pales in comparison to our current one as far as being a liar is concerned -- for crying out loud, our current pResident LIED about when and where his parents met so as to ingratiate himself with the African-American Civil Rights movement. Simply put indeed, there is an easy answer...stay the hell out of Syria's Civil War.

mnottertail -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 7:20:55 AM)
LOL. If that is the case, when Obama lied, no one died. EE-YUL!!! EE-YUL!!! EE-YUL!!!! What you got when Hillary is Prez for birther hallucinations?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 1:37:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Rich, I need to take you to task, in a friendly way. Your thread title makes it seem like this is a new developement. It's not. I grew up, listening to body counts on the radio and television evening news; not really understanding it but understanding enough to know that wars kill people and that, in my mind, makes it something to be avoided at all costs. That's not the interpretation I intended to be taken from it, Michael. It's a sequel - with somebody new in the top role. Yeah, I looked at it, again and you're right. I mis-took the inclusion of the president's name without the full colon. My reading comprehension (or lack, thereof) is showing. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think the analysis in your post is a damn good one, though I also think you may be a bit further along the isolationist spectrum than I. I am probably much further along, actually. I was born in late '64. I am the absolute "tail end" of the Baby Boomer generation (1946-1964) and I was *not* pulling a "John Kerry" when I typed about remembering the body counts. I remember them distinctly. I remember driving up Rt. 17 in Paramus, NJ with my mom in her '63 Corvair and hearing the guy on 1010 WINS radio giving us a body count. Then, while eating dinner Roger Grimsby (It was almost always Roger) giving the body count on the Eyewitness News out of NYC. I remember being in the car with my mom (I was probably less than 4 years old) and saying: "Mommy? What's 'Vietnam'?" because I heard it ALL THE TIME. When my mom explained to me what war was and gave me the specifics that she thought a child could handle about Vietnam, it formed what are still my beliefs about war (although with the advent of "smart bombs" and shit, I've refined my stance, some) I just don't think we need to that involved with what goes on, outside our borders. We have enough problems here and while some of the more bleeding heart types might be prone to chastise me with: "We need fair trade. Other people have a right to a decent living" I would answer with: "Yeah, how fair is China being with us? That's fair trade? My ass, it is!" I can't help but think that "fair trade" is just another way to globalize us into sheep, prepped for slaughter by the powers-that-be that would have us just do their bidding and not bleet, when we feel something must be said. If we want to truly return to being a super power (and I'm not saying I do), we should go back to competing with the world market because I truly believe that when we have our backs to the wall is when we tend to shine the brightest. Regards, Ronald Reagan

cloudboy -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 4:05:26 PM)
What exactly is the comedy reference and who else picked up upon it?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 4:19:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy What exactly is the comedy reference and who else picked up upon it? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/ [image]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WkKZJVG5wTk/TTgZ3j4kbmI/AAAAAAAC9rk/Cu4ekB4Raq8/s1600/team_america_world_police.jpg[/image]

cloudboy -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 4:28:20 PM)
The other factor in play here is the timing of a strike / intervention. Waiting a period of time to marshal support and build a coalition is more important than acting fast and going it alone. The larger problem at play is how divided the world is: there is no coalition to intervene and stabilize the country, the UN is divided, and factions in the Middle East don't trust each other and regularly use terror and violence as a weapon. The US has spent something like $1 Trillion Dollars and Afghanistan, IRAQ, Egypt, Syria all remain highly unstable.

cloudboy -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 4:33:25 PM)
Thanks for the reference. Interesting that the South Park team released this in 2004 a time very near to the ultimate bottom in US foreign policy execution. The only similar time was during the Vietnam War era, but because of the draft, Americans paid more attention and wanted more accountability out of the American leadership. I don't really think you can tag Obama with this reference, but it's not surprising the Heretic would try it anyway. That's how he rolls.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 4:43:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Thanks for the reference. Interesting that the South Park team released this in 2004 a time very near to the ultimate bottom in US foreign policy execution. The only similar time was during the Vietnam War era, but because of the draft, Americans paid more attention and wanted more accountability out of the American leadership. I don't really think you can tag Obama with this reference, but it's not surprising the Heretic would try it anyway. That's how he rolls. Actually, I think it was a pop culture reference to the movie's title more than anything else. I do admit, I have not watched the movie. I can't imagine it is "kid friendly" and the only movies I saw were Rated-G. I might have to queue it up though. quote: The US has spent something like $1 Trillion Dollars and Afghanistan, IRAQ, Egypt, Syria all remain highly unstable. [sarcasm]Shit. Is that it?!? Let's bomb Syria down to bedrock!! Don't get much more stable 'n that! [/sacasm] Okay, so I "previewed" this before changing it. I'm going to show some format changes I think some might find humorous (and this is simply for humor's sake... but not humour's...). Look at the formatting of these next two phrases... Default Font Sarcasm Font

RottenJohnny -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 4:52:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, I think it was a pop culture reference to the movie's title more than anything else. I do admit, I have not watched the movie. I can't imagine it is "kid friendly" and the only movies I saw were Rated-G. I might have to queue it up though. Just a heads up, DS...NOT kid friendly...although it was rated as having the best sex scene ever between puppets. [8D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 4:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, I think it was a pop culture reference to the movie's title more than anything else. I do admit, I have not watched the movie. I can't imagine it is "kid friendly" and the only movies I saw were Rated-G. I might have to queue it up though. Just a heads up, DS...NOT kid friendly...although it was rated as having the best sex scene ever between puppets. [8D] Thanks, Johnny! I am no longer married, so I do have some time on my hands when the lil ones aren't around. This was not going to be one aired in front of them by any stretch. lol

Politesub53 -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 4:59:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim Our previous President pales in comparison to our current one as far as being a liar is concerned -- for crying out loud, our current pResident LIED about when and where his parents met so as to ingratiate himself with the African-American Civil Rights movement. Simply put indeed, there is an easy answer...stay the hell out of Syria's Civil War. My bad, I completely forget Bush and Blairs lies "only" resulted in thousands of dead and injured.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 5:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Thanks, Johnny! I am no longer married, so I do have some time on my hands when the lil ones aren't around. This was not going to be one aired in front of them by any stretch. lol It's damned funny. Enjoy!

cloudboy -> RE: Team America - World Police: The Obama Years (9/4/2013 5:42:38 PM)
quote: [sarcasm]Shit. Is that it?!? Let's bomb Syria down to bedrock!! Don't get much more stable 'n that! [/sacasm] It's just very disheartening. What's going on in Syria reflects (1) the state of the Middle East and (2) a divided world unable to effectively intervene. Part of this is the legacy of the IRAQ war. Other powers don't trust the US, and the American people don't trust our Military / Foreign policy leadership. The UN is fractured. Europe hasn't the will power or means. Syria just looks like bloodshed in a vacuum.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.076172E-02