Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Ron Paul Rally for the Republic

12346»

Posts

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    if there were to be a war, wouldn't it be the UN's job to stop it? Why is there a UN in the first place then, if the US is responsible for every other country in the world?

    I have two questions.

    Don't libertarians hate the UN?

    Why are you willing to cede power to the UN but not the federal government(isn't it kinda like an even bigger government)?

    I'm not a Libertarian and I don't think RP, or his sidekick Bob Barr, should be president. I'm just sayin that I like his policy on foreign affairs.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Spoiler:
    The US didn't just fund local Afghani warlords. Our government funded foreign fighters in Afghanistan, notably Osama Bin Laden. As the quote states, the victory against the Soviets led credibility the fanatical Islamists.
    Who, again, were a minority until the U.S. wished the rest of Afghanistan good luck with no schools or roads.

    So you don't. You're just saying it's bad and we should stop, cut hundreds of thousands of jobs that other companies seem to think put out some very valuable people worth several times more what the government paid to train and employ them, increase the amount we have to pay for goods, and hope China and Japan get along just fine on their own.
    Then please show me data on how US bases overseas means cheaper goods for Americans.
    All past trade agreements? Yeah. Those work.
    And China and Japan will get along as they have gotten along for centuries before the US moved in.
    Centuries before the US had anything to do with them they were already staunchly racist towards one another. Decades before WWII they'd already been at war a couple times. By the time WWII rolled around for the US they'd been massacring civilians. China hasn't forgotten this.
    And, if there were to be a war, wouldn't it be the UN's job to stop it? Why is there a UN in the first place then, if the US is responsible for every other country in the world?
    The UN only has the military of other nations to rely on. Which is why we have so much clout in the UN. Which is why we get more benefits overall from the UN than any other country. Particularly, get this, trade agreements.
    Of course Japan was vulnerable, what with the Allied gang-bang going on. No reason for us to still be there.
    And, according to you, to ever have been there since our military should only be acting defensively unless otherwise attacked. What would you have done? Take out Japan's military just enough that it wasn't a threat to us but some how enough against China and Russia?

    PSN: allenquid
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    That movie should be required to watch in school.

    The Discovery Channel special made to shill for it would probably be a slightly better educational choice.
    Yeah but... Tom Hanks.

    PSN: allenquid
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    if there were to be a war, wouldn't it be the UN's job to stop it? Why is there a UN in the first place then, if the US is responsible for every other country in the world?

    I have two questions.

    Don't libertarians hate the UN?

    Why are you willing to cede power to the UN but not the federal government(isn't it kinda like an even bigger government)?

    I'm not a Libertarian and I don't think RP, or his sidekick Bob Barr, should be president. I'm just sayin that I like his policy on foreign affairs.

    I wasn't declaring you a libertarian, I was just asking in general.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Crikey. This is going in circles. If you truly believe that an interventionist foreign policy works, then we have to be prepared for, and admit to, the problems that arise from intervention. Will anyone here argue that US policies in the Middle East isn't, at least in some part, responsible for the terrorism we face today? Can we admit that the US is, in some part, responsible for the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the subsequent problems we've had with them? Which, of course, forced us to fund Saddam Hussein in an effort contain the Iranians, which in turn led to the Gulf War and the Occupation.

    I can swallow foreign intervention if done wisely and if our government admits mistakes and learns from them. But, really, what lessons have we learned?

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Yes. Intervention has screwed some shit up. It has also fixed and prevented other shit. So it would seem the solution here would be to improve it, not get rid of it. Also, to learn about Japanese/Chinese relations before saying they've been getting along for centuries.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Crikey. This is going in circles. If you truly believe that an interventionist foreign policy works, then we have to be prepared for, and admit to, the problems that arise from intervention. Will anyone here argue that US policies in the Middle East isn't, at least in some part, responsible for the terrorism we face today? Can we admit that the US is, in some part, responsible for the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the subsequent problems we've had with them? Which, of course, forced us to fund Saddam Hussein in an effort contain the Iranians, which in turn led to the Gulf War and the Occupation.

    I can swallow foreign intervention if done wisely and if our government admits mistakes and learns from them. But, really, what lessons have we learned?
    Overall, our international intervention has been a net good. We've done plenty of stupid shit, too (and by "we," I mostly mean Republicans).

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Yes. Intervention has screwed some shit up. It has also fixed and prevented other shit. So it would seem the solution here would be to improve it, not get rid of it. Also, to learn about Japanese/Chinese relations before saying they've been getting along for centuries.

    I said they'd be getting along as they had been for centuries, by which I meant their antagonistic relationship. I suppose my use of "getting along" was a bit ambiguous. I've lived in one of those two countries for several years, and I know there aren't good feelings between them. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that we should still be in Japan sixty years after WWII.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Yes. Intervention has screwed some shit up. It has also fixed and prevented other shit. So it would seem the solution here would be to improve it, not get rid of it. Also, to learn about Japanese/Chinese relations before saying they've been getting along for centuries.

    I said they'd be getting along as they had been for centuries, by which I meant their antagonistic relationship. I suppose my use of "getting along" was a bit ambiguous. I've lived in one of those two countries for several years, and I know there aren't good feelings between them. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that we should still be in Japan sixty years after WWII.
    So you're fine with losing one of our biggest trading partners to a massive war. Cause they're only a massive partner while we help them out.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Yes. Intervention has screwed some shit up. It has also fixed and prevented other shit. So it would seem the solution here would be to improve it, not get rid of it. Also, to learn about Japanese/Chinese relations before saying they've been getting along for centuries.

    I said they'd be getting along as they had been for centuries, by which I meant their antagonistic relationship. I suppose my use of "getting along" was a bit ambiguous. I've lived in one of those two countries for several years, and I know there aren't good feelings between them. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that we should still be in Japan sixty years after WWII.
    So you're fine with losing one of our biggest trading partners to a massive war. Cause they're only a massive partner while we help them out.

    As soon as we pull out, is a Sino-Russian alliance going to invade mainland Japan? I think that's a bit alarmist. China is, right now, Japan's biggest trade partner. Japan has a technologically advanced defensive force, which would most likely be expanded were the US to leave. And, I seriously don't believe that a war between two world powers is of credible concern now.
    Perhaps Russia is putting her bear face back on, but what valid proof is there that an American exodus will lead to an attack on Japan?

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • TheLawinatorTheLawinator Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They only play nice because we made them. Prior to our influence they had been fighting for thousands of years.

    My SteamID Gamertag and PSN: TheLawinator
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They only play nice because we made them. Prior to our influence they had been fighting for thousands of years.

    The Europeans fought one another since before the collapse of the Roman Empire, before there were even nations to speak of. Now they're in one big happy union. It's a different world now. China's economy relies on her trade partners, and we have the UN to mediate any disputes. While I'm not saying that war is impossible, I don't believe it's a likely threat in the near future.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Yes. Intervention has screwed some shit up. It has also fixed and prevented other shit. So it would seem the solution here would be to improve it, not get rid of it. Also, to learn about Japanese/Chinese relations before saying they've been getting along for centuries.

    I said they'd be getting along as they had been for centuries, by which I meant their antagonistic relationship. I suppose my use of "getting along" was a bit ambiguous. I've lived in one of those two countries for several years, and I know there aren't good feelings between them. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that we should still be in Japan sixty years after WWII.
    So you're fine with losing one of our biggest trading partners to a massive war. Cause they're only a massive partner while we help them out.
    As soon as we pull out, is a Sino-Russian alliance going to invade mainland Japan? I think that's a bit alarmist. China is, right now, Japan's biggest trade partner. Japan has a technologically advanced defensive force, which would most likely be expanded were the US to leave. And, I seriously don't believe that a war between two world powers is of credible concern now.
    Perhaps Russia is putting her bear face back on, but what valid proof is there that an American exodus will lead to an attack on Japan?
    It won't lead to an attack on Japan, but Japan militarizing will really destabilize the region, and make China and North Korea waaaaayyyy jumpier.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Crikey. This is going in circles. If you truly believe that an interventionist foreign policy works, then we have to be prepared for, and admit to, the problems that arise from intervention. Will anyone here argue that US policies in the Middle East isn't, at least in some part, responsible for the terrorism we face today? Can we admit that the US is, in some part, responsible for the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the subsequent problems we've had with them? Which, of course, forced us to fund Saddam Hussein in an effort contain the Iranians, which in turn led to the Gulf War and the Occupation.

    I can swallow foreign intervention if done wisely and if our government admits mistakes and learns from them. But, really, what lessons have we learned?
    Overall, our international intervention has been a net good. We've done plenty of stupid shit, too (and by "we," I mostly mean Republicans).

    This is where I really have to call bullshit.
    The Republican party may be a horrible neocon led mess now, but it wasn't always. The Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands as well. It was a Democratic president, Johnson, who stepped up the US's involvement in Vietnam, and it was a Republican, Nixon, who ultimately got them out (yes, I know he wasn't perfect as far as the whole Vietnam thing is concerned, but he did get them out).
    It was a Democrat, Truman, who got the US into the Korean war.
    It's pretty much just from Reagan on that the Republicans have been the main instigators or that kind of shit.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Crikey. This is going in circles. If you truly believe that an interventionist foreign policy works, then we have to be prepared for, and admit to, the problems that arise from intervention. Will anyone here argue that US policies in the Middle East isn't, at least in some part, responsible for the terrorism we face today? Can we admit that the US is, in some part, responsible for the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the subsequent problems we've had with them? Which, of course, forced us to fund Saddam Hussein in an effort contain the Iranians, which in turn led to the Gulf War and the Occupation.

    I can swallow foreign intervention if done wisely and if our government admits mistakes and learns from them. But, really, what lessons have we learned?
    Overall, our international intervention has been a net good. We've done plenty of stupid shit, too (and by "we," I mostly mean Republicans).
    This is where I really have to call bullshit.
    The Republican party may be a horrible neocon led mess now, but it wasn't always. The Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands as well. It was a Democratic president, Johnson, who stepped up the US's involvement in Vietnam, and it was a Republican, Nixon, who ultimately got them out (yes, I know he wasn't perfect as far as the whole Vietnam thing is concerned, but he did get them out).
    It was a Democrat, Truman, who got the US into the Korean war.
    It's pretty much just from Reagan on that the Republicans have been the main instigators or that kind of shit.
    You really don't think the Korean war was a good thing?

    I think the people of the Republic of Korea would disagree. As would our economy.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Crikey. This is going in circles. If you truly believe that an interventionist foreign policy works, then we have to be prepared for, and admit to, the problems that arise from intervention. Will anyone here argue that US policies in the Middle East isn't, at least in some part, responsible for the terrorism we face today? Can we admit that the US is, in some part, responsible for the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the subsequent problems we've had with them? Which, of course, forced us to fund Saddam Hussein in an effort contain the Iranians, which in turn led to the Gulf War and the Occupation.

    I can swallow foreign intervention if done wisely and if our government admits mistakes and learns from them. But, really, what lessons have we learned?
    Overall, our international intervention has been a net good. We've done plenty of stupid shit, too (and by "we," I mostly mean Republicans).
    This is where I really have to call bullshit.
    The Republican party may be a horrible neocon led mess now, but it wasn't always. The Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands as well. It was a Democratic president, Johnson, who stepped up the US's involvement in Vietnam, and it was a Republican, Nixon, who ultimately got them out (yes, I know he wasn't perfect as far as the whole Vietnam thing is concerned, but he did get them out).
    It was a Democrat, Truman, who got the US into the Korean war.
    It's pretty much just from Reagan on that the Republicans have been the main instigators or that kind of shit.
    You really don't think the Korean war was a good thing?

    I think the people of the Republic of Korea would disagree. As would our economy.

    The Korean war wasn't definitively good or bad.
    Fact is though that the leader in the North at the time, who'd been chosen by the people of North Korea, had agreed to have an election between himself and the leader of South Korea to unite the country. The leader of South Korea, knowing he'd lose, refused, even though his people mostly wanted to. The US backed the brutal dictator in the south because the guy in the north was a communist, and back then, they were retarded about that kind of thing.
    Because of the Korean war, north korea became isolated, and to this day remains hostile towards the west.

  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    That movie should be required to watch in school.

    The Discovery Channel special made to shill for it would probably be a slightly better educational choice.
    Yeah but... Tom Hanks.

    It begins with strippers in a hot tub.

    Beat that Discovery.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited September 2008
    It's pretty much just from Reagan on that the Republicans have been the main instigators or that kind of shit.

    You keep saying this in thread after thread and then not actually demonstrating it.

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Crikey. This is going in circles. If you truly believe that an interventionist foreign policy works, then we have to be prepared for, and admit to, the problems that arise from intervention. Will anyone here argue that US policies in the Middle East isn't, at least in some part, responsible for the terrorism we face today? Can we admit that the US is, in some part, responsible for the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the subsequent problems we've had with them? Which, of course, forced us to fund Saddam Hussein in an effort contain the Iranians, which in turn led to the Gulf War and the Occupation.

    I can swallow foreign intervention if done wisely and if our government admits mistakes and learns from them. But, really, what lessons have we learned?
    Overall, our international intervention has been a net good. We've done plenty of stupid shit, too (and by "we," I mostly mean Republicans).
    This is where I really have to call bullshit.
    The Republican party may be a horrible neocon led mess now, but it wasn't always. The Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands as well. It was a Democratic president, Johnson, who stepped up the US's involvement in Vietnam, and it was a Republican, Nixon, who ultimately got them out (yes, I know he wasn't perfect as far as the whole Vietnam thing is concerned, but he did get them out).
    It was a Democrat, Truman, who got the US into the Korean war.
    It's pretty much just from Reagan on that the Republicans have been the main instigators or that kind of shit.
    You really don't think the Korean war was a good thing?

    I think the people of the Republic of Korea would disagree. As would our economy.

    A united Korea wouldn't be bad for anyone. Right now, perhaps China lets crazy Kim stay crazy because he's a buffer between China and the US forces in S. Korea. Were the communists to have won the war, as they had in Vietnam, then Korea would perhaps be, at worst, like Vietnam. Which isn't so bad. However, with such close proximity to it's ally China, I'd wager the a Communist Korea wouldn't be so bad off. Except, of course, for the fact that it's Communist.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.