All bout america

Ghost Jagdgeschwader wrote:You also completely ignored my last point, but whatever, I've come to expect that from you.

It's not that I am ignoring the points, it's that there is no possible intelligent response to them. This conversation has gone from serious to you giving such a demented, bias, and twisted perspective about "how things are", that there is no main response. Your "facts" are distorted with an extreme "pro-USA" bias. And no, you are just repeating the opposite of me also, I don't see anything different, other than false "facts". you are partially ignoring my point also: Using NATO offensive is using it as a terrorist organization. Therefore, we are WORSE than the ME, and are hypocrites about it. You say "killing in the name of religion is wrong", well guess what: KILLING IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY is equally wrong. You state that you don't like them shoving their beliefs on us, well guess what, THEY DON'T LIKE IT EITHER.

We have no god given right to be in the ME at this point, and continuing our presence just shows that we are terrorists. I'm starting to get fed up with all this, and how anyone can sanely justify being there, without pulling the hypocrite card on themselves.

I also did partially address your points if you didn't notice... I stated you can't destroy ideas, no matter how many you kill (1st paragraph), and that the US brought the war to the ME, and to think otherwise is ignorant (2nd paragraph), and that NATO doesn't operate that way (3rd paragraph). You can't really give a good response when the argument is no longer based on true facts that you are responding to, you know what I mean?


@Andrew - Jesus you are like Jag, only ignorant times 9000. Fine, call me close minded. I guess 90%+ of the world is "close-minded" in YOUR eyes then. If you haven't noticed, pretty much no one agrees with the US foreign military policy outside the US.

andr_00_ew wrote:If you read all of Erik's posts, you see that he keeps restating the same things and even when they are all answered differently, his next post is the exact same thing.

So basically, his mind is closed shut to anything that is contrary to his beliefs. Even though many points have been brought up.

The "his mind is closed shut" argument is so ironic. One could argue that either side of the argument in any argument is closed minded if they don't instantly take up to anything contrary to their belief.

I'm not saying Erik needs to take up our beliefs, he just needs to not shut them down without actually reading them.

All he sees when we type is murder and war

andr_00_ew wrote:I'm not saying Erik needs to take up our beliefs, he just needs to not shut them down without actually reading them.

All he sees when we type is murder and war

lol at this. Okay, contrary to your belief, I actually do sit down and take the time to read every post. Sometimes I respond instantly, other times I take a little bit to reflect on it, before I give a response. The way you are implying it is that if I don't suddenly "understand your side and start agreeing with you", then therefore, I must be a close-minded fool. And everyone who does share your views is open-minded then? Right...

And have you seen the last few pages? The topic is about "murder / war", so of course when I type that is all I see; that is all anyone who ACTUALLY READS the posts sees.

See the irony here?

war is a means of politics by other means - Carl Von Clausewits

Basically war is a inevitable no matter how hard your resolve against it is. This very thread proves what happens when political agendas clash, and some of them have definitely gotten heated. That would call for heated measures as i'm sure one could tell. While I wont comment on my opinion about the ME conflicts right now, I will say I believe in war as a last measure.

TL;DR: Even if you dislike war, trying to say there should never be any is foolish.

eaustinn36 wrote:

Ghost Jagdgeschwader wrote:You also completely ignored my last point, but whatever, I've come to expect that from you.

It's not that I am ignoring the points, it's that there is no possible intelligent response to them. This conversation has gone from serious to you giving such a demented, bias, and twisted perspective about "how things are", that there is no main response. Your "facts" are distorted with an extreme "pro-USA" bias. And no, you are just repeating the opposite of me also, I don't see anything different, other than false "facts". you are partially ignoring my point also: Using NATO offensive is using it as a terrorist organization. Therefore, we are WORSE than the ME, and are hypocrites about it. You say "killing in the name of religion is wrong", well guess what: KILLING IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY is equally wrong. You state that you don't like them shoving their beliefs on us, well guess what, THEY DON'T LIKE IT EITHER.

We have no god given right to be in the ME at this point, and continuing our presence just shows that we are terrorists. I'm starting to get fed up with all this, and how anyone can sanely justify being there, without pulling the hypocrite card on themselves.

I also did partially address your points if you didn't notice... I stated you can't destroy ideas, no matter how many you kill (1st paragraph), and that the US brought the war to the ME, and to think otherwise is ignorant (2nd paragraph), and that NATO doesn't operate that way (3rd paragraph). You can't really give a good response when the argument is no longer based on true facts that you are responding to, you know what I mean?


@Andrew - Jesus you are like Jag, only ignorant times 9000. Fine, call me close minded. I guess 90%+ of the world is "close-minded" in YOUR eyes then. If you haven't noticed, pretty much no one agrees with the US foreign military policy outside the US.

"Demented" and "twisted" are pretty big overstatements.

Please explain to me how using NATO offensively is using it as a terrorist organization, and please tell me how NATO does anything that is comparable to something that Hezbollah, the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda does on a daily basis.

I would say you actually made a good counterclaim to my arguments, but here's the thing you made an oversight on. Killing in the name of religion is always wrong, because you're killing people that don't believe in your archaic set of beliefs. Killing in the name of Democracy is wrong, because in this case we're killing people who in power would simply continue the same tyrannical governments that the entirety of North Africa and the Middle East have been protesting.

Wait what?

You addressed my arguments, but you didn't back them up extensively and instead gave one small detail to back them up.

@Andrew That really has no place in the argument.

Never thought I would ever see this...

http://gawker.com/5860272/the-irs-is-more-than-four-times-more-popular-than-congress

Spoiler:

The most ironic thing in history:

America going communist

Question: Is the theory of Evolution true? (meaning human evolved from previous beings).


Well, America doesn't think so...

http://www.science-sc.com/2010/06/evolution-less-accepted-in-us-than.html

OMG, HELL YES!!!

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/obama-pentagon-outline-billions-defense-cuts

In short, we are cutting defense now $500 billion to $1 trillion.



And before anyone starts whining about defense and heavy military cuts, consider this..

Hey Eaustinn, how about we don't approach this the Fox news way by only giving the people partial information.

The graph looks very startling, but you need to remember that as a percentage of GDP...

The U.S. is number 24 (as of 2005.)

Look for yourself.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=noa&rank=24#us

We needed the cuts, yeah, but the fact is that it wasn't so outrageous that we needed to cheer for a cut.

That is all.

eaustinn36 wrote:OMG, HELL YES!!!

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/obama-pentagon-outline-billions-defense-cuts

In short, we are cutting defense now $500 billion to $1 trillion.



And before anyone starts whining about defense and heavy military cuts, consider this..

Does that link say "Hampton Roads" in it? Awesome, my area's getting recognition.

Meatshield718 wrote:Hey Eaustinn, how about we don't approach this the Fox news way by only giving the people partial information.

The graph looks very startling, but you need to remember that as a percentage of GDP...

The U.S. is number 24 (as of 2005.)

Look for yourself.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=noa&rank=24#us

We needed the cuts, yeah, but the fact is that it wasn't so outrageous that we needed to cheer for a cut.

That is all.

I'd imagine spending 1.5 trillion or whatever he said the number was before now WAS outrageous. And pretty much all of those countries except for Greece seem to be pretty shitty countries. Like Swaziland or whatever. 4.70% of Swaziland's GDP must be like eight dollars. They probably need that much just to keep their country from falling apart. Obviously I'm exaggerating here, but I still think we shouldn't be anywhere near any of those countries on the list. Especially given the fact that we're a first world country, nice and far away from mostly all conflict.

EDIT: Not counting of course various wars nice and far away from home.

I think you are missing China and Saudi Arabia...

Either way, the point wasn't that we spend equal to other countries. The point was that his graph made it look like it was outrageous.

Get what I'm saying?

Meatshield718 wrote:I think you are missing China and Saudi Arabia...

Either way, the point wasn't that we spend equal to other countries. The point was that his graph made it look like it was outrageous.

Get what I'm saying?

Yeah. But I definitely count Saudi Arabia and China as shitty countries, and countries we shouldn't be spending as much money on our military as. And even if it made it look outrageous, it still was outrageous for a country in our situation.

EDIT: Again not taking into account various wars.

What's our situation, the recession? I feel as if you don't realize that increased government spending and decreased taxation help fight recession, and now that we are exiting one it's dangerous to start cutting for fear of the "double dip" recession as everyone is calling it. Plenty of people get jobs from the military, and a huge cut isn't going to help that at all. Obama took a risky move here, I think to boost his ratings for the upcoming election. Granted, I think we've finally made it out of the woods based on our GDP gain this year, so I think it was a good idea at this point.

Also if you think the largest oil producer in the world (Saudi Arabia) and one of the largest economies in the world (China) are shitty, then I'm going to go and have to say that you are wrong.

Meatshield718 wrote:I think you are missing China and Saudi Arabia...

Either way, the point wasn't that we spend equal to other countries. The point was that his graph made it look like it was outrageous.

Get what I'm saying?

China and Saudi Arabia aren't 1st world.

Also, the graph made it look outrageous because it is outrageous. Since when does more GDP mean you need to ramp up defense spending? The borders of the nation aren't growing, just the economy within. We might not have the highest % of GDP spending, but our GDP is HUGE, so even if it was at 1%, we still spend more than anyone else by far.

If any graph or list is deceiving, it is yours.



@Sleepy - Agreed.

First world countries were decided based on their side of the argument during the cold war. None of this applies today. Honestly.

Yes, our GDP is huge, so our spending on the military is going to be larger...That's my point.

We needed to cut spending, but it was your data that made it look larger than it actually is according to our economic power in the world.

Meatshield718 wrote:What's our situation, the recession? I feel as if you don't realize that increased government spending and decreased taxation help fight recession, and now that we are exiting one it's dangerous to start cutting for fear of the "double dip" recession as everyone is calling it. Plenty of people get jobs from the military, and a huge cut isn't going to help that at all. Obama took a risky move here, I think to boost his ratings for the upcoming election. Granted, I think we've finally made it out of the woods based on our GDP gain this year, so I think it was a good idea at this point.

Nope, wasn't what I was referring to. I meant "our situation" as in not a shithole country like China/Saudi Arabia and not a shithole country like Israel that has to spend that much money on their military 'cause they're actually surrounded by enemies. We've got our friendly, igloo dwelling, hockey watching, moose hunting neighbors to the north (and I refuse to ever believe anything else about them) and then Mexico to the south, which is admittedly not the best neighbor. Even so, it's not like we're at war with Mexico or anything, even if they are kind of killing each other just south of us. So I'm saying we don't need to be spending as much money militarily as Israel or other countries in similarly shitty situations, especially not percentage wise, since we make much more than them.

Meatshield718 wrote:Also if you think the largest oil producer in the world (Saudi Arabia) and one of the largest economies in the world (China) are shitty, then I'm going to go and have to say that you are wrong.

Yeah, they most definitely are shitty. I'm referring to the fact that it would blow to live their, either because you could get executed for fraud in China (make any jokes you want about executing CEOs or lawyers or Ad executives, it's not exactly just), and because Saudi Arabia is a shitty country to live if you are a woman. Which is a good percentage of people there and everywhere else.

@ Desert, we're the only people that have the balls to help anyone else in the world. We're the main funders of NATO, and the U.N. does jack. Honestly, countries trying to get off of their feet shouldn't be spending money on military. They need social programs and a stronger industries.

(Granted I'm on your side guys with the decision here, I'm just playing devil's advocate because you don't seem to see the other side of the argument.)

Also, I think I'm done with arguing about what a shitty country is, because you are acting on stereotypes more than anything. Sorry. T_T

Meatshield718 wrote:
Also, I think I'm done with arguing about what a shitty country is, because you are acting on stereotypes more than anything. Sorry. T_T

The only stereotypes were in regards to Canada, and I'm not going to not stereotype Canada. They're too nice, and the stereotypes are too irresistible.

China really does execute people for fraud (not to mention that they also execute minors), and Saudi Arabia really is known for their poor women's rights.

What we see as "helping", others see as "bullying" or "invading", or even acting as a "terrorist international bully".

And there is no real official definition of "1st, 2nd, 3rd world", since the old definition is outdated and irrelevant. The definition I go by (and is accepted with the people I personally know) is 1st world = industrialized, 2nd world = industrializing (in process), 3rd world = not industrialized.


And again just because our economy is bigger, doesn't mean our defense needs to change. Even if our GDP tripled, I see no need to add even 1 cent to the defense budget. We spend more than most countries combined, for no valid reason.

Meatshield718 wrote:@ Desert, we're the only people that have the balls to help anyone else in the world. We're the main funders of NATO, and the U.N. does jack. Honestly, countries trying to get off of their feet shouldn't be spending money on military. They need social programs and a stronger industries.

(Granted I'm on your side guys with the decision here, I'm just playing devil's advocate because you don't seem to see the other side of the argument.)

Also, I think I'm done with arguing about what a shitty country is, because you are acting on stereotypes more than anything. Sorry. T_T

If you guys are the only people who have the balls to help anyone else in the world then how come you haven't helped Iran yet?

bman4782 wrote:

Meatshield718 wrote:@ Desert, we're the only people that have the balls to help anyone else in the world. We're the main funders of NATO, and the U.N. does jack. Honestly, countries trying to get off of their feet shouldn't be spending money on military. They need social programs and a stronger industries.

(Granted I'm on your side guys with the decision here, I'm just playing devil's advocate because you don't seem to see the other side of the argument.)

Also, I think I'm done with arguing about what a shitty country is, because you are acting on stereotypes more than anything. Sorry. T_T

If you guys are the only people who have the balls to help anyone else in the world then how come you haven't helped Iran yet?

Cause noone cares about your family Bman

bman4782 wrote:If you guys are the only people who have the balls to help anyone else in the world then how come you haven't helped Iran yet?

Maybe because of the fact that Iran refuses to accept any United States assistance? Brush up on recent political events and you'd know that Iran is probably the most anti-American country in the middle east, if not the world.

FoundDa Kiwi wrote:

bman4782 wrote:If you guys are the only people who have the balls to help anyone else in the world then how come you haven't helped Iran yet?

Maybe because of the fact that Iran refuses to accept any United States assistance? Brush up on recent political events and you'd know that Iran is probably the most anti-American country in the middle east, if not the world.

They refuse to accept assistance from the United States because they fucked with them before. The US tried to kill Iran, before Iran tried to kill the US. Like during the revolution, you and the iraqis just had to team up on us and still it was not enough for you. You really think Iran hates you the most out of ALL the world?