luckydevil Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 But lets keep thinking all of our foriegn policy moves since WW2 (and during WW2 with the dropping of the atom bomb) were with malevolent intentions, it makes it easier to paint America as the bad guy I would argue a great deal of our foreign policy was/is actually started with good intentions. So is welfare policy. You know the rest Oh and I am not painting America as the bad guy. Why is hard for people to distinguish between American civil society from their government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs' Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 If WW3 comes along...there probably won't be the need for a draft...it's safe to say Nukes will be used be someone...and once one person uses them then everybody will get in on it. And if someone tries to Nuke us I can tell you now Washington DC will be one of the 1st 3 cities targeted (along with LA & probably New York City). Canada and Mexico will be next. That is why we are building that new super-highway. It is all about Manifest Destiny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 SighIts Friday at 11 pm, and right now I don't have time to pull up the 1000s of links and scholarly studies on Reagan's impact in hastening the fall of Soviet Communism and freeing the eastern block But lets keep thinking all of our foriegn policy moves since WW2 (and during WW2 with the dropping of the atom bomb) were with malevolent intentions, it makes it easier to paint America as the bad guy it wasnt reagen at all it was truman and eisenhower and kennedy who helped establish the space and arms race which sped up the ussr's demise, which was inevitable in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 I would argue a great deal of our foreign policy was actually started with good intentions. So is welfare policy. You know the rest Oh and I am not painting America as the bad guy. Why is hard for people to distinguish between American civil society from their government? Lucky I think you are smart enough and have seen me post enough the past 4 years to realize that I do make that distinction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Lucky I think you are smart enough and have seen me post enough the past 4 years to realize that I do make that distinction Then stop posting @#$% like this "it makes it easier to paint America as the bad guy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 Canada and Mexico will be next. That is why we are building that new super-highway. It is all about Manifest Destiny! lmao i can think of 11-12 million soldiers that can invade mexico for us.:laugh: then we can establish a working economy there. hey president bush i just solved illegal immigration. and we can send all the american dropouts to build their houses. hey president bush i just solved the education problem. **** maybe i should be president. bow down :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Frustration with intellectual dishonesty?Read the link and tell me if I should retract...I'll trust your judgement. The first article does call for imperialism. The second does as well, but the purpose of the first is to give an unbiased view point of American imperialists. The second is to point out how absurd these ideas are. They do both argue for imperialism, if that is what you are denying then you should retract. Taken on its own, I wouldn't really take the second seriously, but then again there ARE people like MSF who do oddly enough say Darth Vader, Sidious etc are their favorite characters for those reasons. I know pointing at MSF doesn't actually give me any cred in this because MSF is a...unique... individual, but it does point out that weird view points. You can disagree, but I don't think it is obvious (who is right/wrong) enough to warrant an insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Why is it that when someone points out the PNAC people scream tin hat. It's not a conspiracy theory - it's a think tank with obvious influence that not only tells you what they are after but provides names as well. No conspiracy folks, just plain old politics. The odd thing is it's typically conservatives that dislike talking about the PNAC. You'd think that a group with so much influence of conservative leaders wouldn't bother them much. Then again liberals don't like talking about moveon either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 getting back to the point no one can deny that US intrusion into other countries has created a hatred of america and when ur foreign policy is to control the world, then i dont think its is going to help us maintain power if everyone wants to break free from our control. even european countries resent us now, because their countries do everything we tell them to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 I believe it argues for world leadership,rather than Empire building still. Luckydevil ,I apoligize if I offended you or any others with my post. I was out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 I believe it argues for world leadership,rather than Empire building still.Luckydevil ,I apoligize if I offended you or any others with my post. I was out of line. and so the peace talks begin.......hopefully they will be more effective than the ones that israel and palestine had:flowers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Luckydevil ,I apoligize if I offended you or any others with my post. It's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 now lets get back to repeating ourselves in civilized debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 I believe it argues for world leadership,rather than Empire building still.Luckydevil ,I apoligize if I offended you or any others with my post. I was out of line. The thing is that world leadership as it was described, and empire building isn't really that big of a difference (especially when the guy spends most of the article talking up the idea of an empire). Don't mistake his call for multilateral forces to be anything other than calling in our allies to do our bidding. Also a search of this author on wiki and google indicates this to be his intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 The thing is that world leadership as it was described, and empire building isn't really that big of a difference (especially when the guy spends most of the article talking up the idea of an empire). Don't mistake his call for multilateral forces to be anything other than calling in our allies to do our bidding. Also a search of this author on wiki and google indicates this to be his intent. which is pretty much like it is right now with the UN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 this isnt at all a political thread, but i just wondered where we will have to go to war next. if we can fix the iran and korea situations with diplomacy, then who will we invade next?...under any administration its kind of funny how things changed topic so quickly:munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 The thing is that world leadership as it was described, and empire building isn't really that big of a difference (especially when the guy spends most of the article talking up the idea of an empire). Don't mistake his call for multilateral forces to be anything other than calling in our allies to do our bidding. Also a search of this author on wiki and google indicates this to be his intent. Yeah, but what good are allies that don't do your bidding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 really I dont care who you all want to invade, I already have dibs on calling the next invasion and my target will be our newest state to our union. Welcome Djibouti! (ja-booty) I really want to hear on the news US forces enter Djibouti, or the US Airmen pounds Djibouti. Or US Marines puts boots in Djibouti, or US Marine fires off a shot in Djibouti. Once in statehood how awesome would it be to hear the prez say Im gonna tax Djibouti, or see their tourism commericals saying Djibouti is for lovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 does anyone know if the military industrial complex was mentioned in bowling for columbine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 It's funny at first, but eventually you come to realization that these guys are bloody serious. The one positive thing I can say about neocons is that they can be breathtakingly honest at times.You know what the scary thing is, Jacksonianism ( which fuels most conservative support for expansive militarism). Jacksonians make Neocons look like pacifists. That's because the neo-cons, whether they admit it or not, are also Wilsonian and love social engineering. They're probably closet Eagle fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 now for something completely different...i had a thread that i made asking this, but noone ever replied. does anyone know where i can find redskins highlights or game clips, because im trying to make a movie, but i cant find a good site that i can get videos from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 now for something completely different...i had a thread that i made asking this, but noone ever replied. does anyone know where i can find redskins highlights or game clips, because im trying to make a movie, but i cant find a good site that i can get videos from www.torresa.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter39 Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 www.toressa.com i got a page error when i tried to open it edit- never mind i fixed it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Jacksonianism is essentially screw them all, lets bomb them to death type nationalism ( when it comes to foreign policy). They are not interested in democracy, just pure unabashed force. Easy enough, Jacksonians strongly support pure democracy, that is anything is right if the majority of the group supports it (does assume the group is them and most Jacksonians can't believe that the group may disagree with them if its sane). Think populism. They do like to control sufferage but as Bastiat shows, universal sufferage is BS. Wilsonians believe that it is the governments duty to run the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Why is it that when someone points out the PNAC people scream tin hat. Because that is how they have been told to react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.