Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If there's nothing else, why worry?  There are billions of people they haven't gotten around to yet, so I'm hoping to die old and happy before they get me in their sights.

They've got nuclear arms to deal with that unproblem , kid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The West is the centre of the world's enlightenment and far more advanced in its human rights and treatment of other nations than anywhere else. It is, in fact, the freest, kindest, most enlightened s

I agree that if big business is the only beneficiary of action then it should not be done.

I can't believe people posting and opposing attack on Bashir Assad's bases!!!!. Wake up people who are claiming to defend the defenseless. Responsible for chemical attacks or not, Bashir Assad is a pr

Just now, bcsapper said:

Yeah, because killing all your customers is the ultimate goal of the capitalist.

Competition, kiddiewinkie.   If they don't kill you with rockets, they've fucked the climate, as you know.   Better bet on the Rapture!  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Penderyn said:

Competition, kiddiewinkie.   If they don't kill you with rockets, they've fucked the climate, as you know.   Better bet on the Rapture!  :)

If they'd followed my advice and introduced a massive worldwide nuclear power initiative and a massive worldwide program of forced sterilization they could have saved the climate.  They could have used all the fissionable material in the plants. 

The only Rapture I can look forward is the very unlikely prospect of an England win this summer in Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Penderyn said:

Socialism is rule by the working majority.   Where did that happen except where it was followed by mass-murder?

You said this: "   'The west' is, to me, the most advanced area of capitalism, and all that is evil, "  Well  I answered you and I'm trying to understand your statements and you keep dancing.  I explained what the "opposite" was, so now, will you at least withdraw the charge that I am an "imperialist mug" ?

You seem to want to just make vague, generalist comments against everything - pragmatism, capitalism, and now socialism too.  Where is this conversation going ?

There's nothing wrong with criticizing an idea, but have the courage to stick to it.  And be specific.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Penderyn said:


  'The west' is, to me, the most advanced area of capitalism, and all that is evil, and I'm not really into weighing that against the fact that the tortured and murdered often swear before they go, which is about the level of this particular 'balance', as far as I can see.   But sorry if I've misunderstood you.

The West is the centre of the world's enlightenment and far more advanced in its human rights and treatment of other nations than anywhere else. It is, in fact, the freest, kindest, most enlightened society in the history of the world, and most of the rest of the world are generations, if not centuries behind. Capitalism has raised the living standard of more people in the world than any other philosophical or economic system ever imagined, and continues to do so despite the self-hating rantings of the poorly educated extremists of the left who benefit from it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

The only Rapture I can look forward is the very unlikely prospect of an England win this summer in Russia.

It is looking less and less likely England or anyone else in the West, will even GO to the world cup in Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saudi backed ISIS has a long history of using chemical weapons. Why would Assad, who is winning the war, use chemical weapons when there is such sensitivity around it?

Why are people stupid enough to fall for this shit all over again?

From The New York Times:

 

Nov. 21, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Islamic State has used chemical weapons, including chlorine and sulfur mustard agents, at least 52 times on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq since it swept to power in 2014

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time: two former European colonial powers France and UK join the US imperial warmongering to attack an Arab country — for the full advantage of their collective settler colony in the region Israel —

Their Zionist implant in the region had been paving the way for their invasion by systematic bombing of the selfsame Arab country —

What will this invasion achieve? Exactly the opposite of its stated objectives— it will strengthen the bloody ruling regime in Syria, it will expand the insidious power of its supporters Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, as Turkey will use this smokescreen to target more Kurdish enclaves — all of which will create yet another fertile ground for the resurrection of ISIS —

The Zionist counterpart of ISIS will meanwhile do what it always does under these circumstances: kill more Palestinians and steal more of Palestine— Netanyahu’s corrupt racist to the core rule over the Israeli garrison state will linger even more — liberal Zionists will join the bandwagon and shed crocodile tears for the Syrian civilians—

Trump will look presidential hoping this war will ward off Mueller investigation and weaken the impact of Comey’s new book on his charlatanism, as Niki Haley exudes humanitarian air of caring for Syrians, as she prepares her next career move drafting her speech for the forthcoming AIPAC conference —

The cost? Even more death, destruction, mayhem, and refugees in Syria —exposing the vulgar hypocrisy of Trump who bans Syrian refugees to come to US, and even uglier duplicity of the despicable Haley defending Syrian civilians at the UN while vetoing any investigation into the Israeli crimes against humanity in Palestine—

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If they'd followed my advice and introduced a massive worldwide nuclear power initiative and a massive worldwide program of forced sterilization they could have saved the climate.  They could have used all the fissionable material in the plants. 

The only Rapture I can look forward is the very unlikely prospect of an England win this summer in Russia.

Sheer perversion!  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You said this: "   'The west' is, to me, the most advanced area of capitalism, and all that is evil, "  Well  I answered you and I'm trying to understand your statements and you keep dancing.  I explained what the "opposite" was, so now, will you at least withdraw the charge that I am an "imperialist mug" ?

You seem to want to just make vague, generalist comments against everything - pragmatism, capitalism, and now socialism too.  Where is this conversation going ?

There's nothing wrong with criticizing an idea, but have the courage to stick to it.  And be specific.

Where have you explained 'the opposite?   Can't find any explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Argus said:

The West is the centre of the world's enlightenment and far more advanced in its human rights and treatment of other nations than anywhere else. It is, in fact, the freest, kindest, most enlightened society in the history of the world, and most of the rest of the world are generations, if not centuries behind. Capitalism has raised the living standard of more people in the world than any other philosophical or economic system ever imagined, and continues to do so despite the self-hating rantings of the poorly educated extremists of the left who benefit from it.

There's lovely!    And what do you do when you wake up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

Where have you explained 'the opposite?   Can't find any explanation.

2nd last post from page 30

"  So the opposite is saying that countries must always act globally, ie in the global interest."

The point being acting in your own interest, or in the interest of other countries (or other individuals) is not an approach to governing that will sustain itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2nd last post from page 30

"  So the opposite is saying that countries must always act globally, ie in the global interest."

The point being acting in your own interest, or in the interest of other countries (or other individuals) is not an approach to governing that will sustain itself.

I think our own interest always lies in avoiding footling interference in other people's countries to benefit big business.   Its never the fat and rich who die, is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

I think our own interest always lies in avoiding footling interference in other people's countries to benefit big business.   Its never the fat and rich who die, is it?

I agree that if big business is the only beneficiary of action then it should not be done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Argus said:

The West is the center of the world's enlightenment and far more advanced in its human rights and treatment of member nations than anywhere else. It is, in fact, the freest, kindest, most enlightened society in the history of the world, and due to the West's exploitation of their peoples and resources most of the rest of the world are generations, if not centuries behind. Capitalism has raised the living standard of entitled people in the world than any other philosophical or economic system ever imagined, and continues to do so despite observations of the enlightened who benefit from it.

Fixed your post :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 5:07 AM, marcus said:

Saudi backed ISIS has a long history of using chemical weapons. Why would Assad, who is winning the war, use chemical weapons when there is such sensitivity around it?

Why are people stupid enough to fall for this shit all over again?

From The New York Times:

 

Nov. 21, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Islamic State has used chemical weapons, including chlorine and sulfur mustard agents, at least 52 times on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq since it swept to power in 2014

 

This is kind of what I am suspecting.  Each time before the evidence by the UN/US was inconclusive. However each of those times, airstriked were sent in by the USA..  This happened under Obama about 3 times (each time not getting congressional authorization for a declaration of war, otherwise I consider this terrorist activity by those claiming they are the good guys) and once under Trump (so far). Again, no congressional authorization was given to Trump, and Trump did not go to congress for the authorization.  This is definitely an impeachable action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people posting and opposing attack on Bashir Assad's bases!!!!. Wake up people who are claiming to defend the defenseless. Responsible for chemical attacks or not, Bashir Assad is a proven mass murderer who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people for his survival ever since uprising against his regime by Syrian people started 8 years ago and millions up to 10  million homeless all because one person (himslelf) wish to survive.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That said as an unbiased poster I also believe that the US, Britain, France (and Germany who supports them) are bloody HYPOCRITES in all of these while they are condemning chemical attacks by Syrian regime (and rightly so) and taking military actions against those who they believed have used chemical weapons against innocent poeple, BUT they stood by and watched in the 80's while the muderous regime of Saddam Hussain of Iraq for years used chemical weapons against Iran (both against civilians in Halabja and Iranian soldiers who were defending their soil)  in the 8 year war.

In fact not only they remained silent while the use of chemical weapons was proven again and again by iraqis but they supported Saddam Hussain with money (stinky Arabia and Kuwait) and weapons (the French and Russian in particular but also Britain and US). Where the hell were they then that now they suddenly condemn chemical attacks and show military action? They are only after their own interests.  Hypocrite bastards.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GostHacked said:

This is definitely an impeachable action.

Maybe you prefer to hand the decision over to a bunch of bureaucrats and wait for them to make a decision, in the spirit of political cooperation. As if.
Meanwhile if I were the bad guys, by the time you people are done talking about it over coffee I'd move my important stuff out of there. As a bad guy, I don't have to abide by any legal proceedings. That's why the President has the legal authority to act without congressional approval.

Link

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Maybe you prefer to hand the decision over to a bunch of bureaucrats and wait for them to make a decision, in the spirit of political cooperation. As if.
Meanwhile if I were the bad guys, by the time you people are done talking about it over coffee I'd move my important stuff out of there. As a bad guy, I don't have to abide by any legal proceedings. That's why the President has the legal authority to act without congressional approval.

Link

So you rather a president go to war with another nation without congressional approval?  Also, if I was Trump I would have worked to seek approval in a closed session. Because Trump did let everyone know it was going to throw missiles at Syria. So that's not a surprise and seems to counter your argument right from the start.  Don't forget that Trump sent out tweets that they were going to bomb Syria. 

The POTUS does NOT have legal authority to act without congressional approval to go to war with another nation. If they do, some things need to be brought forth (as your article explains)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article describes that limited military intervention doesnt require congressional approval. I cant read it now but I recall it mentioning a time limit of 60 days.

War has not been declared by America.

Edited by OftenWrong
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...