[JackMonroe]

How did a post about the space shuttle turn into an anti Bush 9/11 conspiracy thread...All these Americans that backed him because they were angry and then suddenly turn anti war a few months later saying how they never wanted us to go.  How about, quit being a retard and believing what politicians say.  If you feel like you got tricked because hillbilly from Texas told you there were WMDs oer der een Eye-raaak ther steeealin aaaar joooobs then you are stupid.  And then all of the sudden it's fine again to be at war because Obama said it was ok.  Don't worry guys, he's the first black president.  No, 9/11 was not a conspiracy.  Yes, it was stupid to go over there and try to nation build.  It was not a country who attacked the USA, it was a group of people who had taken refuge in a country.  "Some terrorists are hanging out in Utah, let's bomb Utah."  And now we are doing the exact same shit.  New president, same shit.  If someone attacks you, retaliate and then be done with it.  All this political fear speak is bullshit.  Sending soldiers over there to fight for some scapegoat cause for you is shit shit shit.  "They have nukes in Russia."  "They have nukes in Cuba."  "They have nukes in Iraq."  "They have nukes in Iran."  If North Korea didn't publicly fail at launching rockets every day it would be "They have nukes in North Korea."  Keep everyone scared of everything so we can keep fighting wars and pissing people off.  It just causes more problems.  There is probably a new person every day that wants to harm the USA because of our own stupid actions.    Also, one more thing.  The United Nations is not much better.  They are essentially the mob.  If the mob says it's ok, then it's ok.  It was them who allowed Israel to be reestablished right in the middle of a bunch of people who hated them. 

Rant over.  Not saying I am right about anything, but that is how I feel.

Yep, totally agree with you on most things except for the stuff about the UN. Obama is 90% like Bush in every aspect, and nobody realizes it because he has a much different charisma. When you have a terribly corrupted and unregulated lobbying system like the one in the U.S., the biggest lobbying groups will ALWAYS have their demands done by the president as they have paid for his campaign. He essentially either does what they say, or owes them millions of dollars, just like Newt Gingrich owes his lobbying funders 2.3 million dollars right now as he dropped out of the presidential race. That is why the U.S. will never have an athiest/agnostic president and will never have a president that doesn't back Israel.

It seems most soldiers i've talked to that have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan completely believe they went there for their country's freedom and to do justice in the world... total baloney and military brainwash.

[JackMonroe]

Yep, totally agree with you on most things except for the stuff about the UN. Obama is 90% like Bush in every aspect, and nobody realizes it because he has a much different charisma. When you have a terribly corrupted and unregulated lobbying system like the one in the U.S., the biggest lobbying groups will ALWAYS have their demands done by the president as they have paid for his campaign. He essentially either does what they say, or owes them millions of dollars, just like Newt Gingrich owes his lobbying funders 2.3 million dollars right now as he dropped out of the presidential race. That is why the U.S. will never have an athiest/agnostic president and will never have a president that doesn't back Israel.

It seems most soldiers i've talked to that have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan completely believe they went there for their country's freedom and to do justice in the world... total baloney and military brainwash. 

I still can't fathom how people fall for it over and over again.  It frustrates me so much that I hate to talk about it.  I will say that the last election and this upcoming one, I think the majority of military contributions were for Ron Paul.  I could be wrong though.  And the reason I say that about the UN.  It is basically a bunch of Politicians from different countries who get together and decide who gets to have what.  We are more trustworthy than you so we can have nukes but you can't.  If you try to make nukes then we will have no choice but to NATO your ass.  It is also clear that certain UN people have more sway than others.

I still can't fathom how people fall for it over and over again.  It frustrates me so much that I hate to talk about it.  I will say that the last election and this upcoming one, I think the majority of military contributions were for Ron Paul.  I could be wrong though.  And the reason I say that about the UN.  It is basically a bunch of Politicians from different countries who get together and decide who gets to have what.  We are more trustworthy than you so we can have nukes but you can't.  If you try to make nukes then we will have no choice but to NATO your ass.  It is also clear that certain UN people have more sway than others.

Yep, Ron Paul has gotten most contributions from the military the past few elections and it's ironic since he advocates ending foreign policy and focusing on defense while the general public has the view that the military thrives on these foreign wars while it is not true, absolutely noone thrives on them, they are a waste of an enormous amount of resources.

U.N. delegates are a different the politicians however since they actually advocate human rights and frown upon the infringement of countries' sovereignties, which is a double-edged sword because on one hand they're not allowed to go into every country that has a dictator and order NATO airstrikes on the regime and on the other hand they become absolutely useless sometimes in moments that need decisions and immediate action, such the Rwanda conflict when the UN did not even budge a little finger despite various first hand reports and sources of the genocide taking place. Most times all they can do is add sanctions onto a country which only alienates that country in trade and communication and makes them even more pissed off IMO.

terribly corrupted and unregulated lobbying system like the one in the U.S., the biggest lobbying groups will ALWAYS have their demands done by the president as they have paid for his campaign. He essentially either does what they say, or owes them millions of dollars, just like Newt Gingrich owes his lobbying funders 2.3 million dollars right now as he dropped out of the presidential race. That is why the U.S. will never have an athiest/agnostic president and will never have a president that doesn't back Israel.

I can't see any Democracy in that.

total baloney and military brainwash.

I can't see any Democracy in that.

There is absolutely none. My economics teacher put it best: We're all supposed to have 1 vote right ? Well how come lobbying groups completely dictate political agendas of presidents and their campaigns? We all know how successful and advantageous Obama's advertisement campaign was so... Doesn't it make it the more money you have and the more money you can pool with other people for common interests, the more of a vote and political say you have ?

It's completely absurd. The only other nation in the world with completely unregulated lobbying like the US is Mexico. 

U.N. delegates are a different the politicians however since they actually advocate human rights and frown upon the infringement of countries' sovereignties,...

The UN is just an arm of US foreign policy, you can't do squat in the UN without the US agreeing. I'm not only talking about the voting system in the Security Council, you should see what happens 'behind the scenes'. The US is the empire of this age, just like the Roman Empire was at one point. You could compare the current world system, with the UN and NATO (dominated by the US) with the Metternich system of the Austrian Empire.
It may be fucked up that it is all this calculated and cold but that's just the way it is. I'd rather live in a world dominated by the US than in one dominated by Saudi Arabia, but that's just maybe because I live in Belgium and the 'US collateral damage' doesn't affect me.

...in moments that need decisions and immediate action, such the Rwanda conflict when the UN did not even budge a little finger despite various first hand reports and sources of the genocide taking place.

Don't know, is a strong military involvement the best option in those cases? Half warm commitments like in Rwanda or Bosnia (Srebrenica) are a terrible option. If you don't have a strong mandate, your opponents will know and exploit that and it usually makes things worse (think about Syria). On the other hand you could commit yourself to a big military operation. But are you gonna put out every fire in the world (Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Yugoslavia,...) with an operation that costs a lot of money, effort and lives? Are you gonna free every country of its oppressive leaders (too much to name) ? It just doesn't seem possible. Those politicians are not 'pure evil', most of them care (there are exceptions), but they can only commit to 'save people' when their country has something to gain as well.

That fact is that the US got involved in Yugoslavia because it was an opportunity to get influence in that area, after years of domination of the USSR. Russia was weak in that area in the 90's so they took the chance.
They didn't get involved in Darfur because it was something they saw as too risky with few advantages.
Etc, etc...


And about Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas. His ideas about a defensive postion for the US are a big break with current policy. The US tried that after WWI. What happened? End thirties Germany and Japan were on the brink of 'taking over the world', and the US got involved. If the US would abbandon its involvement in the Western Pacific and the Middle East, there are other countries ready to take its place. And believe me, human rights won't be their first priority. Would the US like to lose its number one position and get pushed around on several issues? I'd like to see that.

Don't get me wrong, excesses must be strongly criticised, otherwise power rolls over everyone. But it's not as simple as it seems.

The UN is just an arm of US foreign policy, you can't do squat in the UN without the US agreeing. I'm not only talking about the voting system in the Security Council, you should see what happens 'behind the scenes'. The US is the empire of this age, just like the Roman Empire was at one point. You could compare the current world system, with the UN and NATO (dominated by the US) with the Metternich system of the Austrian Empire.
It may be fucked up that it is all this calculated and cold but that's just the way it is. I'd rather live in a world dominated by the US than in one dominated by Saudi Arabia, but that's just maybe because I live in Belgium and the 'US collateral damage' doesn't affect me.



Don't know, is a strong military involvement the best option in those cases? Half warm commitments like in Rwanda or Bosnia (Srebrenica) are a terrible option. If you don't have a strong mandate, your opponents will know and exploit that and it usually makes things worse (think about Syria). On the other hand you could commit yourself to a big military operation. But are you gonna put out every fire in the world (Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Yugoslavia,...) with an operation that costs a lot of money, effort and lives? Are you gonna free every country of its oppressive leaders (too much to name) ? It just doesn't seem possible. Those politicians are not 'pure evil', most of them care (there are exceptions), but they can only commit to 'save people' when their country has something to gain as well.

That fact is that the US got involved in Yugoslavia because it was an opportunity to get influence in that area, after years of domination of the USSR. Russia was weak in that area in the 90's so they took the chance.
They didn't got involved in Darfur because it was something they saw too risky with few advantages.
Etc, etc...


And about Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas. His ideas about a defensive postion for the US are a big break with current policy. The US tried that after WWI. What happened? End thirties Germany and Japan were on the brink of 'taking over the world', and the US got involved. If the US would abbandon its involvement in the Western Pacific and the Middle East, there are other countries ready to take their place. And believe me, human rights won't be their first priority. Would the US like to lose its number one position and to get pushed around on several issues? I'd like to see that.

Don't get me wrong, excesses must be strongly criticised, otherwise power rolls over everyone. But it's not as simple as it seems.

And what exactly happens "Behind the Scenes" ? I've been doing Model United Nations for 5 years and am very aware that most of the funds that get allocated in the UN originates from the US and therefore that gives them a very easy bargaining position but I don't think they are running the show as much as you are entailing. NATO, on the other hand, yes.

And involvement in the Rwanda genocide was definitely justified but never happened. I asked the exact same rhetorical questions you asked on the first page.

Comparing the world today to the world post-WWI is quite a leap imo. I can't think of any other country that would "take its place" like you are saying except maybe China.

Well, they push other countries all the time to take the their stances, outside of the voting system. Incentives to take their stance, 'threats' when they won't. Not all that spectacular but it's still not the way the system formally works.

You're talking about justice, but what if you have to decide a US policy, would you get involved in every crisis, knowing that it costs you a lot? You can't save the world.

Imagine the US cuts its relations with Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, India, and doesn't support it financially and with access to military technology. Don't you think it would be only a matter of time (not talking about 5 years of course) before China get dominance in the Western Pacific? I'm sure Taiwain would cut its relations with the US and start to grow towards China if they think the US can't protect them anymore.

(Edit: I didn't use your quotes to 'criticise' you, they were just convenient to give my perspective.)

just to clear some things out.
The strong Syrian opposition is formed of criminals & exiled officers & a bunch of extremists, they messed up a a lot while they were in high positions in the Syrian Government, one of them that is very famous & backed up by "israel" which is "Abdulhaleem Khadam" he was punished with being exiled from Syria because he Agreed on a deal with the US to get the US Nuclear waste to be buried in Syrian Soil, which made the people very mad + allowing the 'Israelies soldiers to occupy the "Golan Heights" which took lots of lives from the Syrian Army during the 1967 war, the others are much much worse.

But the US has a very strong "Mind Washing" machines "Media" that mind washed lots of Syrians inside & outside, made them think that the president is a dictator & he was killing his own people, but in fact the leader was doing everything he can to minimize the loses.

supported by the US & Saudi Arabia extremists Terrorists kept being smuggled into Syria from the Turkish, Jordan, Lebanese & Iraqi borders, they killed, destroyed, burned, assassinated People from the Government & the military & civilians taking advantage of Civilians knowing that the Army will not open fire in cities, but then thing got really worse police men were being shelled with mortars (Made in the US) and civilians were being mugged & tortured to join those terrorists, which was nothing to sit & watch, so the Syrian Army started operations that took months to purify the cities from those terrorists relying on effective Intel's form the people... which the UN, US, Even the Arab Agents for the US called it "Mass Killing for those who oppose" lies were being made by the "millisecond" to fake a situation that would justify a military intervention in Syria, but they couldn't even get close ;P luckily Syrians were much more united than ever & they still are, which hardened the leaderships decisions to end the crisis, &  by the way I'm gonna state what the "Opposition Demands were" & how the president reacted to these demands:

1- Canceling the One party rule (Al-Baath party which was combined of All the people in the country).
2- Ability to activate the politic other party's & give them a chance to rule.
3- more strict measures in elections.
4- .....

Do you know what the president do?
- He threw our current constitution into the garbage, & created a completely new one, & threw it to the people through the polls, & the majority agreed to it, & there you go a new constitution was made with a worldly standards + each month or two a new "Amnesty Law" is issued to those who didn't have blood over their hands.

tell me would the US president ever do that?
I don't think so.

& Still People went to the streets in millions ("none of these marches were aired on international media") supporting the president, they actually adore him, because they know that everything he did, was for the sake & the dignity for the Syrian people, unlike some leaders in US & Europe who brought nothing but shame & disgrace to their people.