Announcement

Collapse

World History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to World History 201.

Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.

This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.

The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Amerika's global Midas touch

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    It isn't innuendo. I supported my argument with links in the OP and you'd know that if you'd quit breaking my posts up and addressing them out of context.
    I'll tell you what... we will look at each nation/accusation.


    Iraq

    Christians are being slaughtered and driven out of the country by the tens of thousands. Radical jihadists, known as ISIS, have (at the very LEAST) captured supplies and weapons that US was supplying to the "good guy" jihadists before ISIS sprang on the scene like a tsunami (of course, where this particular group of Sunni fundamentalists initially got their supplies, funding and training remains a mystery).
    I count 3 innuendos in this one with absolutely ZERO evidence that the US supplied the weapons to those who are actively fighting against the US. So, strike 1

    Afghanistan

    Ever since US invasion and occupation, global opium production and trafficking have skyrocketed to record numbers. Of course, it doesn't help when US marines are ordered to protect the crops and even supply the farmers with resources to grow the crops. Here are more photos taken from Public Intelligence showing marines guarding poppy fields. What's worse is that Taliban are gaining strength in spite of US military occupation and expanding to areas that were not controlled by Taliban prior to 2001.
    Myanmar, too, stepped up opium production; nearly 143,000 acres were devoted to poppy cultivation there. So, are you blaming the US efforts in Afghanistan for that too? And have you ignored the $7.5B the US has invested to try to destroy them since 2002? I also see no evidence from this that the US is arming the rebels that are actively fighting against the US. So, strike 2

    Libya

    Love how the Obama "liberal" whores (a few on this very forum) spun this war, much like the MSM, like it was such a great success, even in spite of the fact the country was apparently a socialist utopia, ironically enough, where citizens got free education and healthcare prior to the attack that "liberals" like Cenk of TYT and Maddow of msnbc vehemently supported (go figure that one out!). Not only did the US supply and fund groups that were either al-qaeda or linked to al-qaeda, men that had been previously killing US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but after the attack, jihadists again managed to score more weapons caches curtsey of the US. Now the country, much like Iraq, is a jihadist hellhole where, of course, Benghazi occurred (where more weapons were supposedly stolen), where Christians are also being slaughtered, where reports of ethnic cleansing have occurred, and where bloody sectarian clashes have been ongoing since the NATO led attack.
    Let's see on this one... Did the US supply weapons to Al Qaeda in Libya? Directly, no. But they allowed them to come from Qatar. So, this is the best evidence from you, which anyone with a journeyman's knowledge of war tactics realizes was a calculated risk to overthrow a perceived worse threat. Libya has been a giant turd for decades, and either option was bad.

    Later on, American weapons were stolen, but there has been no link between those stolen assets and the weapons used in the Benghazi attack, so that wasn't "arming the enemy" either.

    Syria

    Though Syria managed to narrowly escape ending up the next Iraq/Libya (no thanks to the MSM lies, but thanks to the amplification of the truth about the military prospects for Syria that flooded society via independent media), it too is becoming a chaotic hellhole under the strain of a 3 year civil war. Though an Islamic moderate country under Assad, Christians are again facing persecution in areas where US armed and funded radical jihadists (with direct and indirect links to al-qaeda) have taken over

    Bashar Assad was not even remotely a moderate. He fully endorsed state-sponsored terrorism and killed Christians in 2012
    Again, this is a threat analysis decision, and arming the rebels is what is believed to be the lesser of two evils.




    All you're doing is denying those facts and accusing me of conspiracy theory (ad hom) where I never argued a conspiracy.
    Anyone reading your OP will see your conspiracy innuendos like "at least according to the intentions that were made public to us", "at the very LEAST", and "of course, where this particular group of Sunni fundamentalists initially got their supplies, funding and training remains a mystery"

    Obama even waived a federal law that had previously outlawed arming terrorist groups because he KNEW they were in fact arming terrorist groups that had both direct and indirect links to al-qaeda, you shmuck.
    It's spelled sChmuck. And the law allows for the waiver to take place, does it not?

    The fact they knowingly armed terrorists is even in the MSM; this fact is not a conspiracy because it ain't a secret.
    And we have a history of doing just that, dating back to pre-Revolutionary War times. Leading up to the Revolutionary War, we supplied weapons to 2 of the 6 Iroquois nation tribes that had been enemies of the colonists in the French and Indian War, and that had burned colonists' fields, homes, and settlements just a decade before. Heck, we armed Stalin in WW2, and he was a genocidal maniac who murdered millions! The US, and nearly every other country in existence, has made use of whoever will further their interests during wars. Your naÔvetť of those basic principles of wartime strategy is what I am arguing against here. I do agree with you that Obama is an incompetent buffoon, but criticizing the US for basic war practices that everyone in history has employed is simply a juvenile pipe dream.

    I can deal with debate, I just can't deal with someone in denial because of his blind loyalty to his government employer and then uses the cheap ad hom "conspiracy theorist" when there was no conspiracy theory proposed because he can't deal with those facts.
    Have you ever been enlisted Sean?

    From what I understand of tweb rules, the thread starter can in fact ban people from the thread, unless they recently changed that rule.
    You understand wrong. The OP can ban a member if they are being overly abusive or disruptive. I am being neither. I have directly and summarily addressed your claims and supported my assertions, and have been consistent with TWeb debate decorum, so you have no grounds on which to request my dismissal from this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    From what I understand of tweb rules, the thread starter can in fact ban people from the thread, unless they recently changed that rule.
    Ban me. I dare ya.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No. We do not host a cheerleading service. This site exists for debate purposes, and especially in Civics, things will tend to get rough. I'm sorry you can't support your innuendo with actual evidence, but banning me from this thread for daring to knock you off your high horse is not how we do things here.
    It isn't innuendo. I supported my argument with links in the OP and you'd know that if you'd quit breaking my posts up and addressing them out of context. All you're doing is denying those facts and accusing me of conspiracy theory (ad hom) where I never argued a conspiracy. Obama even waived a federal law that had previously outlawed arming terrorist groups because he KNEW they were in fact arming terrorist groups that had both direct and indirect links to al-qaeda, you shmuck. The fact they knowingly armed terrorists is even in the MSM; this fact is not a conspiracy because it ain't a secret. I can deal with debate, I just can't deal with someone in denial because of his blind loyalty to his government employer and then uses the cheap ad hom "conspiracy theorist" when there was no conspiracy theory proposed because he can't deal with those facts. From what I understand of tweb rules, the thread starter can in fact ban people from the thread, unless they recently changed that rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Okay, cognitive dissonance and bias is a conspiracy theory, you retard. But the fact you totally ignore the facts presented in the OP demonstrates bias that's even worse than I imagined. There is no reasoning with a diehard government loyalist like that. So, since you deny the facts stated in the OP -- i.e. "Please cite where the US Government is directly supplying the ones who are fighting us with weapons" -- I would request that you stay out of the thread because your arguments are just personal, thus they have no point to the thread whatsoever.
    No. We do not host a cheerleading service. This site exists for debate purposes, and especially in Civics, things will tend to get rough. I'm sorry you can't support your innuendo with actual evidence, but banning me from this thread for daring to knock you off your high horse is not how we do things here.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Those are not instances of the US arming Hamas. The US money is earmarked for humanitarian and refugee purposes. Sean made a claim that the US was committing treason by arming our enemies. I'd like to see him support that claim with some hard evidence.
    Isn't that something of a technicality? It doesn't seem that the American Government is unaware of where a lot of that money winds up. But I don't know how reliable the news services are either. On the one hand, a government body acceptable to Hamas is the only kind that could be formed (or rather, has any chance of its members surviving). On the other hand, there is the matter of a government that aids and abets terrorists, which in the absence of any action being taken to curb terrorist activity, must be considered a fact. Moreover, the TV station controlled by Hamas and used to indoctrinate people - including preschool age children - in Gaza with terrorist ideology, wholly unfettered by government action. (It is a fair bet that any action taken by the government in these matters would end with funerals for the members of the governing body, so inaction is understandable.)
    All of that adds up to a very dodgy basis to be trying to justify aid programmes of any sort.
    Last edited by tabibito; 08-03-2014, 12:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Okay, cognitive dissonance and bias is a conspiracy theory, you retard. But the fact you totally ignore the facts presented in the OP demonstrates bias that's even worse than I imagined. There is no reasoning with a diehard government loyalist like that. So, since you deny the facts stated in the OP -- i.e. "Please cite where the US Government is directly supplying the ones who are fighting us with weapons" -- I would request that you stay out of the thread because your arguments are just personal, thus they have no point to the thread whatsoever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Cognitive dissonance is not a conspiracy theory lol. It's a psychological way of dealing with a conflict. You work for government (and from what I understand, military aspects of government), so it's a psychological conflict for you to criticize or find fault in the fact that government is assisting, funding and arming the very same enemy that orchestrated 911.
    No they aren't. Your OP was nothing but a screed that militants are doing what militants do with absolutely NO evidence that the US is directly supplying these militants with weapons.

    It's also known as bias. Bias is not a conspiracy theory, stupid.
    It's YOU who is the conspiracy theorist, so accusing me of "bias" is the stupid act.

    Whether there are historical similarities or not is not the point of the thread, so your point is irrelevant to the thread.
    No it isn't. It is the modus operandus of the US to invest in arming those who we believe will further our national interests. Often, that comes back and bites us in the butt, however, that is no reason to desist from said operations. And your complete ignorance of how the US military operates gives you absolutely no authority with which to speak on the subject.

    Just because it happened in the past doesn't matter because it doesn't justify it happening now.
    That's EXACTLY why it matters... It's weighing short term interests and long term security. Sometime one must be sacrificed to facilitate the other, and there are specific reasons why each one should be sacrificed over the other.

    It wasn't excusable then and it isn't excusable now.
    It most certainly was excusable then, and since the only "evidence" (*snicker*) that you've offered is that militants have stolen or illegally obtained US weapons, what is going on now is not even remotely able to be accused as treason.

    So attempting to point out where it happened before is moot.
    Only to the ignorant.



    It has been thoroughly covered in the OP.
    No it wasn't. Please cite where the US Government is directly supplying the ones who are fighting us with weapons. Not conspiracy theories, or unrelated thefts or illegal activities, or misappropriating humanitarian funds. this should be a hoot...

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    It's a glaring fault of mine -- I also responded to Mickiel.
    Associating me to Mickiel is merely ad hom.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Apparently you do because you keep responding
    It's a glaring fault of mine -- I also responded to Mickiel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Depends on which part of the (non English speaking) world you're in.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Is so -- you're a pinko commie liberal and it shows in your titling! (Do you REALLY think anybody takes your crap seriously, Sean?)
    Apparently you do because you keep responding

    I backed up why I believe America is in that shape with much documented information in the OP. I don't think you would disagree that America is presently in bad shape in regards to its current international relations and dealings (in fact, I remember you started a thread with similar subject matter). So, if I have bias, it's justified with facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You mean like starting a thread and purposely misspelling America in the Title?
    Depends on which part of the (non English speaking) world you're in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Itís a political statement about the present shape America is in. It's not the same thing as having blind loyalty and/or bias in favor of American military policy because Iím employed by its government. Itís not even in the same ballpark.
    Is so -- you're a pinko commie liberal and it shows in your titling! (Do you REALLY think anybody takes your crap seriously, Sean?)

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You're biased. The pot calling the kettle black. The dog who ate his homew.... um.... you're biased!
    It’s a political statement about the present shape America is in. It's not the same thing as having blind loyalty and/or bias in favor of American military policy because I’m employed by its government. It’s not even in the same ballpark.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    And your point is what?
    You're biased. The pot calling the kettle black. The dog who ate his homew.... um.... you're biased!

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X