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

  • #31
    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.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

    Comment


    • #32
      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...
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #33
        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.
        "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

        Comment


        • #34
          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.
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #35
            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.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #36
              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.
              "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

              Comment


              • #37
                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.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #38
                  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 naïveté 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.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    Only whatever it touches doesn't turn to gold, it turns to pure carnage and destruction. All the countries it attempted to "set free" and "democratize" (at least according to the intentions that were made public to us) have descended into chaos and have become more dangerous than they were from the start...
                    What are you? a dang Canadian, one of them thar commie Californians or something?



                    ...Tell us where you live and we will send aid...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      I'll tell you what... we will look at each nation/accusation.
                      [indent]



                      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
                      There is no strike as I never claimed ISIS was armed by the US. My point in the OP and title of the thread was that Iraq is even more unstable and dangerous prior to US invasion and occupation. I also stated a fact, that it's a mystery who trained ISIS and where they trained, where they got their funding, where they got their weapons caches, where they got their convo of brand new Nissan trucks, where they got their food supplies, etc, prior to their conquest of locations in Iraq. I can't prove US or Saudi Arabia provided these resources anymore than I can prove someone else did. What I do know is that we have a history of arming and funding Sunni terrorists such as mujahideen (al-qaeda), and that we are in fact presently arming terrorists in Syria (whether that has spilled across the Iraqi border is certainly not out of the question). But again, I can't and didn't make any certain claims. This is what you call logical deduction. If you want to consider that "conspiracy innuendo," or use it as a cheap ad hom because you can't defend against the facts that's your prerogative.


                      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
                      And your point is what? The fact is that after US invasion and occupation, poppy production and drug abuse as a result of that has gone through the roof, and I presented the source for that. Do you have a source stating otherwise? We can directly attribute this to US military occupation since we know that commanders in the field are ordered to guard poppy fields and even supply resources for cultivation. Where is there a strike? Again, I never claimed we armed the Taliban. Taliban is growing in numbers in spite of US occupation, so what's left of US military legacy in Afghanistan? Skyrocketing drug trade?



                      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.
                      My point was that after western attack, Libya is a jihadist cesspool, more dangerous and unstable than before the attack. It was clearly NOT a success as the liberals, neocons and Obama whores were touting it to be. Again, never claimed we directly armed al-qaeda. And I don't know if Benghazi is or is not linked to the weapons smuggled that US allowed, but to assume there is absolutely no link is a serious stretch in logic.


                      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.
                      This is where I did state that we are in fact arming known terrorists linked to al-qaeda and I'm glad to see you at least didn't try to weasel your way around that fact. The article you linked to says Assad killed one Christian, and the likely scenario is that he killed him not for being Christian, but for fighting alongside the al-qaeda rebels. And then the article proceeded to back up further hostilities towards Christians from social media outlets like Facebook

                      I'm not defending Assad (and I expect this will be your next cheap shot), but come on man. This is the source you use to counter the "Largest Displacement of Religious Communities in Recent Memory" since US armed terrorists took over parts of Syria? Really?
                      Last edited by seanD; 08-04-2014, 02:09 PM.
                      "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seanD View Post
                        There is no strike as I never claimed ISIS was armed by the US. My point in the OP and title of the thread was that Iraq is even more unstable and dangerous prior to US invasion and occupation. I also stated a fact, that it's a mystery who trained ISIS and where they trained, where they got their funding, where they got their weapons caches, where they got their convo of brand new Nissan trucks, where they got their food supplies, etc, prior to their conquest of locations in Iraq. I can't prove US or Saudi Arabia provided these resources anymore than I can prove someone else did. What I do know is that we have a history of arming and funding Sunni terrorists such as mujahideen (al-qaeda), and that we are in fact presently arming terrorists in Syria (whether that has spilled across the Iraqi border is certainly not out of the question). But again, I can't and didn't make any certain claims. This is what you call logical deduction. If you want to consider that "conspiracy innuendo," or use it as a cheap ad hom because you can't defend against the facts that's your prerogative.
                        We've armed those who we think can further our goals. It's SOP for wartime. Do you deny that?


                        And your point is what? The fact is that after US invasion and occupation, poppy production and drug abuse as a result of that has gone through the roof, and I presented the source for that. Do you have a source stating otherwise? We can directly attribute this to US military occupation since we know that commanders in the field are ordered to guard poppy fields and even supply resources for cultivation.
                        Just before the US got involved in Afghanistan, the Taliban had outlawed poppy fields. Remove the Taliban, and the poppy fields return. Of course production would go through the roof once prohibition was removed.

                        Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21marja.html?pagewanted=all

                        “Marja is a special case right now,” said Cmdr. Jeffrey Eggers, a member of the general’s Strategic Advisory Group, his top advisory body. “We don’t trample the livelihood of those we’re trying to win over.”

                        United Nations drug officials agree with the Americans, though they acknowledge the conundrum. Pictures of NATO and other allied soldiers “walking next to the opium fields won’t go well with domestic audiences, but the approach of postponing eradicating in this particular case is a sensible one,” said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, who is in charge of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime here.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        So, the UN agrees that destroying the fields would do far more harm than allowing them to remain.


                        Where is there a strike? Again, I never claimed we armed the Taliban.
                        In post 9, you said "We're arming and funding a present enemy "

                        Taliban is growing in numbers in spite of US occupation, so what's left of US military legacy in Afghanistan? Skyrocketing drug trade?
                        Mainly in the areas where our troops have left.





                        My point was that after western attack, Libya is a jihadist cesspool, more dangerous and unstable than before the attack.
                        Libya has always been a jihadist cesspool. Gaddafi supported terrorists of all stripes -- the Irish Republican Army, Basque ETA separatists, Colombian M19 guerrillas -- maintaining as many as twenty terrorist training camps in Libya. He had given sanctuary to the Black September murderers of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics and to the Palestinian terrorist mastermind, Abi Nidal. It was Nidal who orchestrated Libyan-sponsored terrorist bloodbaths at the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985 that left twenty people, four of them Americans, dead. (I'd link to where I got this, but my anti-virus went off)

                        It was clearly NOT a success as the liberals, neocons and Obama whores were touting it to be. Again, never claimed we directly armed al-qaeda. And I don't know if Benghazi is or is not linked to the weapons smuggled that US allowed, but to assume there is absolutely no link is a serious stretch in logic.
                        It rarely is ever a "success" when a nation is destabilized by a coup.


                        This is where I did state that we are in fact arming known terrorists linked to al-qaeda and I'm glad to see you at least didn't try to weasel your way around that fact. The article you linked to says Assad killed one Christian, and the likely scenario is that he killed him not for being Christian, but for fighting alongside the al-qaeda rebels. And then the article proceeded to back up further hostilities towards Christians from social media outlets like Facebook
                        Poison the well much?

                        Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/christian-persecution_n_4568286.html


                        Open Doors, a non-denominational group supporting persecuted Christians worldwide, said on Wednesday it had documented 2,123 "martyr" killings, compared with 1,201 in 2012. There were 1,213 such deaths in Syria alone last year, it said.
                        The Open Doors report placed North Korea at the top of its list of 50 most dangerous countries for Christians, a position it has held since the annual survey began 12 years ago. Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan were the next four in line.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        I'm not defending Assad (and I expect this will be your next cheap shot),
                        I've taken no "cheap shots", so put the martyr complex back in your pocket.

                        but come on man. This is the source you use to counter the "Largest Displacement of Religious Communities in Recent Memory" since US armed terrorists took over parts of Syria? Really?
                        Again, who is worse for American interests? Christians are not really safe in any Muslim country.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          We've armed those who we think can further our goals. It's SOP for wartime. Do you deny that?




                          Just before the US got involved in Afghanistan, the Taliban had outlawed poppy fields. Remove the Taliban, and the poppy fields return. Of course production would go through the roof once prohibition was removed.

                          Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21marja.html?pagewanted=all

                          “Marja is a special case right now,” said Cmdr. Jeffrey Eggers, a member of the general’s Strategic Advisory Group, his top advisory body. “We don’t trample the livelihood of those we’re trying to win over.”

                          United Nations drug officials agree with the Americans, though they acknowledge the conundrum. Pictures of NATO and other allied soldiers “walking next to the opium fields won’t go well with domestic audiences, but the approach of postponing eradicating in this particular case is a sensible one,” said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, who is in charge of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime here.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          So, the UN agrees that destroying the fields would do far more harm than allowing them to remain.




                          In post 9, you said "We're arming and funding a present enemy "



                          Mainly in the areas where our troops have left.







                          Libya has always been a jihadist cesspool. Gaddafi supported terrorists of all stripes -- the Irish Republican Army, Basque ETA separatists, Colombian M19 guerrillas -- maintaining as many as twenty terrorist training camps in Libya. He had given sanctuary to the Black September murderers of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics and to the Palestinian terrorist mastermind, Abi Nidal. It was Nidal who orchestrated Libyan-sponsored terrorist bloodbaths at the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985 that left twenty people, four of them Americans, dead. (I'd link to where I got this, but my anti-virus went off)



                          It rarely is ever a "success" when a nation is destabilized by a coup.




                          Poison the well much?

                          Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/christian-persecution_n_4568286.html


                          Open Doors, a non-denominational group supporting persecuted Christians worldwide, said on Wednesday it had documented 2,123 "martyr" killings, compared with 1,201 in 2012. There were 1,213 such deaths in Syria alone last year, it said.
                          The Open Doors report placed North Korea at the top of its list of 50 most dangerous countries for Christians, a position it has held since the annual survey began 12 years ago. Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan were the next four in line.

                          © Copyright Original Source





                          I've taken no "cheap shots", so put the martyr complex back in your pocket.



                          Again, who is worse for American interests? Christians are not really safe in any Muslim country.
                          Won't touch much of this because you did very little to refute anything I stated in post #41, in fact, I believe you bolstered some of the things I said. About post #9, we weren't specifically talking about Afghanistan. So, since we were being general, I was being general in regards to Syria (since it was part of the argument I presented in the OP). Your argument that poppy production is increasing due to Taliban numbers decreasing is not just illogical but grossly contradictory to the facts of the situation. We have to logically ask, who are US troops protecting the poppy fields from? Obviously, from the Taliban that want to rightly destroy them. The increase in poppy production, trafficking and abuse is NOT due to decreasing Taliban -- as the Taliban are "dominating territory near crucial highways and cities that surround Kabul" -- but logically a result of US protection assistance in opium cultivation. I know that sucks and it gives you a sick feeling in your gut, but those are the facts.
                          "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Sean,

                            Is there anything about America you like?
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Sean,

                              Is there anything about America you like?
                              This is a non sequitur. And it's a shame because it's why most conservatives ( and even liberals in a lot of cases) don't speak out against what their country is doing in their name. This is why no one, or very little, spoke out against the Iraq war for fear that they'd be cast as a traitor or unpatriotic. Just because I rightly criticize what we're doing, and present facts to back it, doesn't mean I don't like America. That's a false dichotomy. I don't like what's being done, especially to Christians, in my name as an American.
                              "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                This is a non sequitur.
                                No, it's an honest question.

                                And it's a shame because it's why most conservatives ( and even liberals in a lot of cases) don't speak out against what their country is doing in their name.
                                I can think of a number of things my country is doing with which I disagree. I just don't make it my main issue.

                                This is why no one, or very little, spoke out against the Iraq war for fear that they'd be cast as a traitor or unpatriotic.
                                No one?

                                Just because I rightly criticize what we're doing,
                                in your opinion, of course. And maybe that's the problem -- you don't realize it's just an opinion.

                                and present facts to back it, doesn't mean I don't like America. That's a false dichotomy.
                                Woah, calm down big fella... it was a QUESTION.

                                I don't like what's being done, especially to Christians, in my name as an American.
                                OK, so let's go there.. what is being done to Christians in your name as an American?
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

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