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

  • Jedidiah
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Let’s see if you can respond without breaking up my post into out-of-context pieces. I doubt you can.
    Suggestion. Try making one point at a time instead of a diatribe. Deal with a single point then move on after to the next point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I addressed your points in post #47 without having to resort to that tactic.
    With a wall of arguments that make rebuttals nothing but competing walls of text. It's not my fault your delicate sensibilities can't handle when someone separates two conjoined arguments into manageable parts where an adequate response can be made to that point alone. And I choose to no longer respond to your giant blocks of regurgitation. I've made my points, and I've made them how I see fit. Whine away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I don't like what's being done, especially to Christians, in my name as an American.
    So, AGAIN, what is being done to Christians in your name?

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    It's called responding point by point. Look at ANY other thread on this site, and you will see that is exactly how responses are done. I will address the rest tomorrow.
    I addressed your points in post #47 without having to resort to that tactic. And it is a forum tactic. It's popular in the forum because it's easy to obfuscate the post by breaking it up into fragments. It not only makes it hard for the person to follow (including lurkers reading it), makes it tedious for the parties involved (so it becomes one big contest of who can outlast the doldrums and redundancy of scattered posts exchange), but it makes it easy to respond to everything the person says out of context. I understand you responding to my OP point by point based on the countries I listed, but posts such as post #46 is a perfect example of how ridiculous this gets. I always notice that the posts get more and more fragmented as the discussion goes on, which is always an indication to me that my opponent has no real points to make. I equate it to two people debating in person, but instead of one making an argument while the other follows, it just becomes two people shouting over each other at the same. It would impossible for anyone to follow such a chaotic debate.
    Last edited by seanD; 08-04-2014, 07:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    It's called responding point by point. Look at ANY other thread on this site, and you will see that is exactly how responses are done. I will address the rest tomorrow.
    Sean has expressed a dislike for point-by-point refutations previously.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I love how you break up my posts into even more scattered pieces than the previous posts and address everything out of context.
    It's called responding point by point. Look at ANY other thread on this site, and you will see that is exactly how responses are done. I will address the rest tomorrow.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I brought them into some form of logical argument, and basically refuted your entire premise in the OP to boot. As I've said more than once, all you have are innuendos that American involvement is the reason for the mess that these countries are in. But your idea of "worse off" is not consistent with the US' interests. But, since you have no experience with these matters, I can just chalk it up to immaturity.



    You mentioned 4 Islamic countries in the OP, then generally said that we were "arming and funding a present enemy". Now you want to claim that you only meant Syria. Sorry, but that doesn't fly.



    It is extremely consistent with the situation. The Taliban outlawed poppy production. When international inspectors visited Afghanistan before Sept 11, they found literally no trace of poppy fields. Once the Taliban was removed from power, the threat was reduced, and the fields returned. That's reality, Sean.



    From the International Community who funded the destruction of 7,300 Hectares of poppy fields last year, and from the Taliban, since they claim it is against Muslim law to grow them.



    And from the international governments who want them destroyed too. Which would completely take the livelihood of roughly 40% of the rural residents of Afghanistan. What do you think that would do? If we destroy the fields, the villagers will turn against us. If the Taliban does, they will cause even greater civil war there, and they would STILL blame us for allowing it.




    Yes it is. Production was literally at 0 in 2000.



    The majority of the poppy fields are in the South and West, specifically the Helmand and Kandahar provinces. Kabul is one of the areas where US and allied forces are destroying the fields.



    That's why those 7,300 hectares were destroyed by coalition forces last year...



    I don't have any "sick feeling" in my gut, because I know what I am talking about. I understand that war is hell, and that our government sometimes has to do what it needs to do to further its interests, and that those methods may be sickening sometimes, but they are mostly necessary.
    I love how you break up my posts into even more scattered pieces than the previous posts and address everything out of context. Note that things I state at the end of my posts may reflect things I state in the beginning of my posts.

    You are indeed correct that I’m ignorant about "US interests" in Iraq. That’s the problem. What we were told about the reasons for going was a lie. And so now we have Iraq more dangerous than before, with heavily armed, skilled and very wealthy Sunni jihadist radicals roaming the countryside with no clear US agenda for the initial invasion that opened up this vacuum (ironically, run by the same radical out-of-control Muslim jihadists we were told were linked to Hussein prior to invasion and used as a reason for invasion). Yes, I’m ignorant about US interests in Iraq, as are most Americans.

    In regards to Afghanistan, again, you are correct in that the fact that poppy fields were next to nil, as you point out, prior to invasion, and now production is through the roof with US military commanders admitting on video that they’re ordered to guard and assist in cultivation. It's funny how you affirm my argument -- Taliban destroyed opium production prior to invasion, now US military guard the fields from the Taliban lol. I also notice that you have provided no links to any of your statistics or assertions, but I’ll overlook that. Once again, your argument is illogical.

    The idea that US troops are protecting fields from Taliban and providing assistance for opium cultivation because they don’t want to piss of the locals is absurd on the face of it. They may believe that, but it’s still absurd. It’s debatable whether US troops should destroy the fields outrightly (after all, war is hell, right? -- and who cares if the locals are pissed), but they don’t have to guard and provide resources for cultivation.

    If US is indifferent and Taliban destroys the fields like they did prior to invasion, that’s on the Taliban, not the US military. In fact, from the NYT source you linked in your previous post it states that local Afghan authorities also want the fields destroyed, so let them deal with it and let the blame ride on them. US strategy of guarding and assisting cultivation is retarded and asinine. However, the fact remains -- regardless of how asinine the logic is -- opium production was nil prior to invasion, US troops are now ordered to both protect the fields from being destroyed and supply the resources for cultivation, hence, we have opium production and trafficking at record numbers in spite of Taliban strongholds increasing. Cause and effect are perfectly logical here.

    Let’s see if you can respond without breaking up my post into out-of-context pieces. I doubt you can.
    Last edited by seanD; 08-04-2014, 05:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    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.
    I brought them into some form of logical argument, and basically refuted your entire premise in the OP to boot. As I've said more than once, all you have are innuendos that American involvement is the reason for the mess that these countries are in. But your idea of "worse off" is not consistent with the US' interests. But, since you have no experience with these matters, I can just chalk it up to immaturity.

    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).
    You mentioned 4 Islamic countries in the OP, then generally said that we were "arming and funding a present enemy". Now you want to claim that you only meant Syria. Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

    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.
    It is extremely consistent with the situation. The Taliban outlawed poppy production. When international inspectors visited Afghanistan before Sept 11, they found literally no trace of poppy fields. Once the Taliban was removed from power, the threat was reduced, and the fields returned. That's reality, Sean.

    We have to logically ask, who are US troops protecting the poppy fields from?
    From the International Community who funded the destruction of 7,300 Hectares of poppy fields last year, and from the Taliban, since they claim it is against Muslim law to grow them.

    Obviously, from the Taliban that want to rightly destroy them.
    And from the international governments who want them destroyed too. Which would completely take the livelihood of roughly 40% of the rural residents of Afghanistan. What do you think that would do? If we destroy the fields, the villagers will turn against us. If the Taliban does, they will cause even greater civil war there, and they would STILL blame us for allowing it.


    The increase in poppy production, trafficking and abuse is NOT due to decreasing Taliban
    Yes it is. Production was literally at 0 in 2000.

    -- as the Taliban are "dominating territory near crucial highways and cities that surround Kabul"
    The majority of the poppy fields are in the South and West, specifically the Helmand and Kandahar provinces. Kabul is one of the areas where US and allied forces are destroying the fields.

    -- but logically a result of US protection assistance in opium cultivation.
    That's why those 7,300 hectares were destroyed by coalition forces last year...

    I know that sucks and it gives you a sick feeling in your gut, but those are the facts.
    I don't have any "sick feeling" in my gut, because I know what I am talking about. I understand that war is hell, and that our government sometimes has to do what it needs to do to further its interests, and that those methods may be sickening sometimes, but they are mostly necessary.
    Last edited by Bill the Cat; 08-04-2014, 04:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Sean,

    Is there anything about America you like?

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:

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