Elegant Winter
Banned
- MBTI
- ENTJ-A
- Enneagram
- Probably Nine
Are you willing to share some of your personal encounters with these Republicans? I'm interested.
Left-Wing Folk
- Thread starter Flavus Aquila
- Start date
Are you willing to share some of your personal encounters with these Republicans? I'm interested.
Elegant Winter
Banned
- MBTI
- ENTJ-A
- Enneagram
- Probably Nine
Perhaps the "multinational corporations and the very wealthy" who "control the government" are the ones "blundering into foreign wars and entanglement"? And maybe they aren't blundering into them.
I did a little research and I found that the Iraq War, which is the example of right-wing blundering that you point out, initially had significant support from both sides. That's not right-wing blundering. That's American or Western blundering - or incredibly effective propaganda and puppeteering by those "multinational corporations" who "control the government" and "act exclusively in their self-interest."
I don't think either the left-wing or the right-wing are to blame for the Iraq War. It was classic manipulation of the masses and that's that. Also, I don't think the very wealthy, the people behind those multinational corporations and so on, can be classified as right-wing. I think they constitute a separate political entity, one above traditional politics.
Last edited:
Pardon me for knowing my own personal experiences with these people. It's not all of them, obviously, but a significant portion of the Republican supporters I have personally had to deal with are downright awful people, constantly spewing hatred of Mexicans, blacks, gays, the Chinese, etc., and this kind of behavior appears to be perfectly okay to them.
Are you sure you're not the one with your own head in the sand?
Ex-roommate at university. Very patriotic, from a military family. No problems there. The problems only really started when we actually talked, and the racism came out. Pointing to "the blacks" for "ruining our country", blaming them for all violent crime. I tried asking him why he believed that, and it just pissed him off.
My grandfather and uncle. Used to be reasonable, but have steadily become more and more hateful in general. My grandfather is the "usual" mix of racism, including, interestingly, a disdain for the Japanese (I'm pretty sure he's still got the anti-Japanese propaganda of WWII in his head or something). Uncle automatically lumps in any attempts at helping the poor with Communism. He'd make McCarthy proud.
There are plenty of others. I live in Tennessee, so it's not exactly uncommon.
Mind you: The Democrats are pretty bad, too, but they at least have the sense to lie about it. They aren't exactly liberal, just as the Republicans aren't conservative.
Last edited:
- MBTI
- INTJ
Ill label this as your own skewed perception. True for you but not the reality of the situation.
Any shreds of evidence provided as a counter are, naturally, inevitably ignored, resulting in further solidification of a person's beliefs, often accompanied with shouts of "Liar!" or "You're delusional!".
Further proof that the US political climate is ridiculous and toxic.
Last edited:
Elegant Winter
Banned
- MBTI
- ENTJ-A
- Enneagram
- Probably Nine
Only Donald Trump can save us. I think we need to make him Emperor as soon as possible. What are your thoughts?
Trump is my lord and master, and I obey without question. Praise the Wall.
invisible
On Holiday
- MBTI
- none
Can I express my support of this sentiment. Responding to arguments with claims like "You're out of touch with reality!" or "You're off the planet!" (blah blah blah) is irrelevant and redundant. It's an abusive (and totally lame) response to a person who advances an argument, rather than representing any coherent response to the argument itself, that is often known as an "ad hominem" fallacy. Seriously... give it a fucking rest.
acd
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infp
- Enneagram
- 9w8 sp/sx
[video]https://youtu.be/8Qc1ZBUsZg4[/video]
brightmoon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]
Now we are talking about the first Gulf War? I thought we were talking about the second one which is completely different.
You clearly don't understand the enemy and you don't understand the current situation in Iraq at all and dismiss any attempt to understand the geopolitical reality of the situation in the Middle East as excuse making for ISIS. I'm curious whats the grand plan for taking out ISIS? Carpet bombing or invasion with ground troops?
[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]
Show me a place and time where Libertarianism actually worked?? Would you really want to live in a world with no regulation, where you couldn't trust the quality of the food you put in your mouth or the efficacy of prescriptions you might need to take?
Now we are talking about the first Gulf War? I thought we were talking about the second one which is completely different.
You clearly don't understand the enemy and you don't understand the current situation in Iraq at all and dismiss any attempt to understand the geopolitical reality of the situation in the Middle East as excuse making for ISIS. I'm curious whats the grand plan for taking out ISIS? Carpet bombing or invasion with ground troops?
[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]
Show me a place and time where Libertarianism actually worked?? Would you really want to live in a world with no regulation, where you couldn't trust the quality of the food you put in your mouth or the efficacy of prescriptions you might need to take?
You have literally said nothing here other than to tell me what I do or don't understand.
I also mentioned the First Gulf War because the mistake to keep Saddam in power led to the deaths of many more Iraqis. Saddam had already used WMDs in the form of chemical warfare against the Iranians during the 1980s Gulf War after tensions escalated as a result of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and Saddam Hussein's fascist coup. As someone who claims to understand the geopolitical scene and to tell me that I do not, I would have thought that mass use of chemical weapons was certainly a good reason to topple his illegitimate mob government in your mind.
There have been several reports from the CIA and other intelligence that proves Saddam was funding and sheltering terrorist organizations. This, when added to the use of chemical weapons, adds more evidence to the table and further gave the United Nations the mandate to remove the sovereignty of the Iraqi state until Saddam Hussein and his government was replaced with a legitimate one. Why does nobody mention these important facts when discussing Iraq?
Last edited:
brightmoon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
No-one in the West, at the time of Iraq-Iran War, seemed to care too much about the use of Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians or the Kurds for that matter. The idea that regime change needed in Iraq to happen came in the lead up to Gulf War 2 in 2002. The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, so why this sudden concern about the use of chemical weapons? Bush tried to make the case for more than just mustard gas, he said that Saddam was trying to make a nuclear weapon (remember this whole purchase of the yellowcake uranium) Colin Powell later admitted he had presented what turned out to be an inaccurate case to the UN on Iraqi weapons, and the intelligence he was relying on was, in some cases, "deliberately misleading."
Plenty of regimes fund and shelter terrorist organizations (like the Saudis). Bush tried to make the case the Saddam was harbouring and sheltering el-Quaida which was false.
There were many falsehoods used to justify regime change which are a part of the historical record and cannot be denied or ignored. Yes Saddam was a brutal dictator. Was he worse than Bashir el-Assad? Worse than the Saudi Royal Family? Maybe. However, this whole idea of "regime change" is a tricky one, isn't it? How is this "legitimate government of Iraq" look now with half the country occupied by ISIS? It looks like a mess to me.
You still haven't answered the question. How do we remove ISIS from power?
Plenty of regimes fund and shelter terrorist organizations (like the Saudis). Bush tried to make the case the Saddam was harbouring and sheltering el-Quaida which was false.
There were many falsehoods used to justify regime change which are a part of the historical record and cannot be denied or ignored. Yes Saddam was a brutal dictator. Was he worse than Bashir el-Assad? Worse than the Saudi Royal Family? Maybe. However, this whole idea of "regime change" is a tricky one, isn't it? How is this "legitimate government of Iraq" look now with half the country occupied by ISIS? It looks like a mess to me.
You still haven't answered the question. How do we remove ISIS from power?
I didn't answer the question because I am not a military strategist and any diplomatic achievement is impossible when pitted against such a group of barbarity. Your pessimism is showing rather well, as you continue to regurgitate the Bush misleading everyone affair whilst refusing to acknowledge that the Kurdish people and indeed the Iraqi people are successfully defending themselves against ISIS and the government there have continually asked for British and American troops to be deployed to help in the defense of their homeland. You also seem to wish to remove the paint on Saddam's back as long as it makes the Western decision to invade Iraq an immoral one based on lies, when in-fact I have repeatedly explained why this is not the case with the examples I gave and the events I mentioned. I also fail to understand why you felt the need to implant speech marks on the Iraqi government. It is a legitimately democratic assembly of representatives of the country. Look at this government and compare it to how it was under Saddam and you will find many key differences. You also don't seem to care about Saddam Hussein at all because your original point was to display how much blunders right-wingers have created over the years (which I also rebutted by citing examples of left-wing governments openly supporting President Bush's foreign policy at the time). My main point is quite simple: It was a notable achievement to remove Saddam from power. Lives were saved and the terrorist organizations are now completely exposed.
- MBTI
- ISTJ
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Get off your high horse.
brightmoon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
Essentially [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] you are wrong. Iraqi lives weren't saved as the result of the invasion and removal of Saddam from power, many more lives were lost are a result of the invasion and the subsequent civil war. Ask those Iraqis living under ISIS whether they are better off Saddam. What do you think the answer will be? The Kurds are better off and some of the Shia population, but now the Sunnis are the losers. The Yazidis and the Christians are the big losers. Ask them if they would rather live under Saddam or ISIS. Terrorist organizations were in many ways only emboldened by the invasion and the removal of Saddam. ISIS didn't exist under Saddam and his removal and the power vacuum that followed played a big part in their success.
You just want to ignore all the lies and deliberate deceptions that were promoted to justify the ware, like it just doesn't matter. Well sorry, it does matter. The war was justified under false pretenses and all of that doesn't just wash away. Were the 4800 coalition lives lost, the 100,000 Iraqi lives losts and the trillions of dollars spent all worth it?
Now there isn't end in sight to our involvement over there which is another thing to think about.
You just want to ignore all the lies and deliberate deceptions that were promoted to justify the ware, like it just doesn't matter. Well sorry, it does matter. The war was justified under false pretenses and all of that doesn't just wash away. Were the 4800 coalition lives lost, the 100,000 Iraqi lives losts and the trillions of dollars spent all worth it?
Now there isn't end in sight to our involvement over there which is another thing to think about.
What babble is this? That is seriously the most insightful question you can ask? When you fight wars, lives are lost. When gangs invade and occupy sections of nations, lives are lost. To fight for freedom, sacrifices will always have to be made if your opposition is totalitarian fascism. I honestly think you are clutching at straws, particularly considering you are utterly convinced I am wrong because I disagree with your bizarre view that the West created ISIS. Islamofascists created ISIS and blamed the West for their own personal prejudices and ignorance. I have brought to the table many examples and a fresh perspective on this issue. I am not 'ignoring all the lies'. I am just sick of being told what I should think about the war. I support it now and if a government like Saddam's were present in the region, I would support it again. The Iraqis were never given a choice when it came to fascist thugs. They didn't elect Saddam and nor did the terrorists ask for their permission to invade. The Iraqis aren't blaming the West, they are asking for our help against ISIS, but too many left-leaning regressives here seem to care more about cultural pessimism instead of helping other nations build their own sovereignty and their own choices.
Last edited:
brightmoon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
Not babble. Just facts which you are unable to refute. You seem determined to excuse the justification of the war regardless of the facts which contradict your point-of-view. Just keep on believing the neo-con fantasy then. What you label "cultural pessimism" is nothing more than telling me that I have to support the war, regardless of the lies that were told to justify it, regardless of the promised outcomes that never came to fruition, regardless of the costs. I just don't buy it.
The basis of your argument is that Saddam was on such a magnitude of evil and possessed such weapons that he constituted a threat not only to his own people, but to us here in the West as well. The facts don't bear this out. There are many brutal dictators in the world, I've already mentioned Assad, the Saudi Royal family, throw in most of the dictators in Africa, and we simply can't remove all of them from power. This notion that once they are removed from power everything will turn out great (mission accomplished) and democracy will flourish is dangerously naive.
As for ISIS, you indicate we should be fighting them with no plan to so which amounts to just empty rhetoric. I suppose saying nothing is better than spouting the nonsense we hear from the current Republican president candidates, like carpet bombing them. We need to think about the consequences of these entanglements and the consequences of our actions or get used to perpetual and fruitless war and occupation
The basis of your argument is that Saddam was on such a magnitude of evil and possessed such weapons that he constituted a threat not only to his own people, but to us here in the West as well. The facts don't bear this out. There are many brutal dictators in the world, I've already mentioned Assad, the Saudi Royal family, throw in most of the dictators in Africa, and we simply can't remove all of them from power. This notion that once they are removed from power everything will turn out great (mission accomplished) and democracy will flourish is dangerously naive.
As for ISIS, you indicate we should be fighting them with no plan to so which amounts to just empty rhetoric. I suppose saying nothing is better than spouting the nonsense we hear from the current Republican president candidates, like carpet bombing them. We need to think about the consequences of these entanglements and the consequences of our actions or get used to perpetual and fruitless war and occupation
I am not a 'neo-con' and I honestly couldn't give an arse about Republicans. I have indeed refuted you and given you facts. It's safe to say that we should just agree to disagree before I grow a brain tumour.
Elegant Winter
Banned
- MBTI
- ENTJ-A
- Enneagram
- Probably Nine
I think we should let Putin have his way with both Syria and ISIS.
"I've watched Assad, and I've watched a little bit on the other side. The problem is the other side of Assad, we have no idea who they are. They probably are ISIS. I'm saying, are we better off with Assad? We have no idea who these people are. We give them weapons. We give them ammunition. We give them everything. Erin, we have no idea who — I mean, maybe it's worse than Assad. So, what are we doing? Why are we involved? We have to get rid of ISIS, very importantly, but I look at Assad and Assad, to me, looks better than the other side, and you know, this has happened before. We back a certain side, and that side turns out to be a total catastrophe. Russia likes Assad, seemingly a lot. Let them worry about ISIS. Let them fight it out." - Donald Trump