AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat > News & Politics

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-08-05, 04:05   Link #1241
Archon_Wing
On a mission
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Not here
Age: 40
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
Archon Wing: If you consider it wrong that America imposes themselves as policeman of the world (a position I share), how comes that you criticize _Obama_ for it, who in fact tries to keep out of most crisis scenarios? As opposed to the Republicans, especially their still-weakened Neocon wing, who demand exactly the opposite?

Just curious.
To summarize, I don't believe the United States has a left wing and a right wing.

They are both right wing. I'm sure a lot of people over in Europe would share this observation. I almost feel that the GOP exists to make the Democrats look good. I don't want to go into left good, right bad or some kind of crap, but it's definitely skewed in a certain direction. The GOP I do consider pretty much a party that should die sooner rather than later.

Would I support Obama over the GOP? Yes, I would. I would never vote for a GOP member today. But I do not think they have moved away enough from the Bush administration, and in fact have continued certain policies. We still allow drone strikes of so called "unlawful combatants".

It is sensible if some would say Obama and co have been blocked by the scum that is the obstructionist GOP legislature. But at the same time, I feel that complying too much with this kind of stuff makes them complicit to some degree. We could always do better to promote peace and the well-being of our own citizens.

I assume that you're not a US resident, and I guess I'll ask anyone else who isn't as well. How much safer do you feel concerning the US and world peace with the Obama administration?

In any case, I think we could at least agree that the US should not base its policy on fighting simultaneous wars like it is 1900. We would not need an equivalent force to deter an attack on American territory. Indeed, when the US themselves cannot pacify Iraq and Afghanistan, the notion that we need an enormous overwhelming force to guard our borders is absurd.
__________________
It doesn't sound like my love is getting to you.
I will not lose anymore; I will not give up.
More passion than hope, much deeper than despair.... Love!

Avatar/Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 07:45   Link #1242
Mentar
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
Understood. To be honest... from the outside I had already developed the same impressions, and when I recently was in Las Vegas for 3 weeks of vacation, I experienced your problem firsthand.

When I was driving to a friend in Salt Lake City, I was listening to various radio stations for several hours. What struck me was the _anger_ which was seeping through several channels. As if it was the explicit intention of the channel to _enrage_ people. Something like this would be unthinkable in Germany.

Controversial discourse notwithstanding - if you are dead set to treat your political opponent not as a fellow American with a different opinion on what to do, but as a traitor to the people, a menace of everything American, and combine that with your political system which _requires_ the search for a consensus as minimum, I find it hard to see how this deadlock can be resolved.
Mentar is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 08:52   Link #1243
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
I mean, why are we even conceptualizing fighting two wars at the same time?
Because of WW2, the Cold War, and the fact that the US wants to remain a superpower. Military strength and infrastructure cannot be mothballed and rebuilt at a moment’s notice, especially in this day and age for a military that depends primarily on air and water for power projection. The days when you can just start a factory and cranking out useful planes and tanks like in WW2 are long gone.

You can substantially reduce the military’s capability if you want, but at the same time you’ll have to be prepared to lose that capability for a very long time – just look at NASA and their struggle to get back out beyond LEO.

If it was that easy to develop military capability, China would have SEA in its bag already.

Quote:
There is no question that there are aggressors around the world, but at the same time it is reckless to look always to means of force when people today are suffering and dying in our streets due to lack of care.
Maybe it’s just me, but for some reason I get the feeling that even if we eliminate the military completely tomorrow, it’s not going to be the poor/middle class that’ll see the benefits.

Quote:
Anyhow, the Cold War is over though
May want to send a memo to Putin.

Quote:
I hope we haven't forgotten the stockpiles of nuclear weapons
Putin certainly hasn’t, as a matter of fact they’re trying to pull out of the nuclear arms treaty.

Quote:
and if two powers were to come to blows that all the conventional weaponry isn't going to save us.
Conflicts don’t automatically escalate to nuclear exchange just because the participants are nuclear powers - Pakistan and India certainly hasn’t nuked each other yet. But you CAN see what happens to countries that unilaterally disarmed itself – see Ukraine.

Quote:
If the start of the 21st century hasn't been clear enough that expensive military endeavors haven't caused a big enough mess yet, we can always look at what happened to the Soviet Union.
The Soviets were done in primarily by terrible economic policies and management, with a topping of overspending on a military it can’t afford. The biggest crisis facing the US are things like healthcare cost, failing infrastructure, and income distribution etc. We literally spend more than twice as much on healthcare and pension as on defense, yet we have one of the worst healthcare system, and little retirement security, and those are problems that's only getting worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
In any case, I think we could at least agree that the US should not base its policy on fighting simultaneous wars like it is 1900. We would not need an equivalent force to deter an attack on American territory.
You’re only looking at part of it. Like it or not, military power is part of politics and diplomacy, it’s not there simply to deter an attack on the country, but also its interests abroad. For the US this means protection and stability for its major allies/trading partners, and open sea lanes for the flow of goods.

What do you think will happen in Europe (especially eastern Europe) and east Asia if the US withdraws completely? You’d have instant arms races in those regions, probably a few that’ll be nuclear.

Quote:
Indeed, when the US themselves cannot pacify Iraq and Afghanistan, the notion that we need an enormous overwhelming force to guard our borders is absurd
I don’t see how the two are related. Those are primarily political/policy failures where the US left it to the local governments to govern effectively, which they have failed to do so spectacularly.

Last edited by kyp275; 2014-08-05 at 09:03.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 09:08   Link #1244
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
You’re only looking at part of it. Like it or not, military power is part of politics and diplomacy, it’s not there simply to deter an attack on the country, but also its interests abroad. For the US this means protection and stability for its major allies/trading partners, and open sea lanes for the flow of goods.
You and I both know that historically, US force in foreign politics has been disastrous. It certainly has functioned as a deterrent when needed, but it's also been used for some very nasty things in the name of "interests and security".

When your military stops being a defensive force and instead becomes about "projecting power", it gives the wrong people an useful tool to do very bad things with it.
__________________
Solace is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 09:27   Link #1245
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
When I was driving to a friend in Salt Lake City, I was listening to various radio stations for several hours. What struck me was the _anger_ which was seeping through several channels. As if it was the explicit intention of the channel to _enrage_ people. Something like this would be unthinkable in Germany.
Radio talk shows aren’t exactly neutral non-profit public discussion forums, they’re there to entertain and get higher ratings for $$$. They’re just pandering to their base, going for the proverbial clickbait tactic so to speak, and some are little better than tabloid newspaper- or do you guys not even have those in Germany?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
You and I both know that historically, US force in foreign politics has been disastrous. It certainly has functioned as a deterrent when needed, but it's also been used for some very nasty things in the name of "interests and security".

When your military stops being a defensive force and instead becomes about "projecting power", it gives the wrong people an useful tool to do very bad things with it.
Not that I disagree, but what you say pretty much applies to every single dominant power ever, it’s just the nature of international politics – those without sticks can talk all they want, but nobody else really cares. Also, it’s worth noting that while the failures can be public spectacles, the successes are generally invisible to the general public.

In today’s day and age, a military without the ability to project its power isn’t worth much to a major power. Why do you think China is in such a hurry to build a blue water navy? Also, maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression that some thinks if only the US would pull back, things would get better. I’m sorry, that power vacuum isn’t going to stay empty, there would be a race to fill that both globally and regionally.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 09:29   Link #1246
TinyRedLeaf
Moving in circles
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
I guess I'll ask anyone else who isn't as well. How much safer do you feel concerning the US and world peace with the Obama administration?
An American commitment to the Asia-Pacific is vital, regardless of who is in charge. The style might differ but, in essence, American policy in the region doesn't deviate very far from the standard, no matter who the president is.

If anything, Asia-Pacific countries (barring one, very notable exception) would likely welcome much more robust action from the Obama administration to back up his so-called "Asian pivot". Yet, at the same time, the people in charge over here are pretty clear about the limits of American power, and probably prefer the measured nuance of Mr Obama's foreign policy over the cowboy antics of his predecessor.

When there's only one sun in the region, all nearby planets have no choice but to fall into orderly orbit around it.

Another sun offers an alternative orbit. It may be a little bit more chaotic, due to the different gravitational pulls, but having a choice is better than none.
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 09:31   Link #1247
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Radio talk shows aren’t exactly neutral non-profit public discussion forums, they’re there to entertain and get higher ratings for $$$.
Sounds like pretty much every other news source in the US.
GDB is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 10:04   Link #1248
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Not that I disagree, but what you say pretty much applies to every single dominant power ever, it’s just the nature of international politics – those without sticks can talk all they want, but nobody else really cares. Also, it’s worth noting that while the failures can be public spectacles, the successes are generally invisible to the general public.

In today’s day and age, a military without the ability to project its power isn’t worth much to a major power. Why do you think China is in such a hurry to build a blue water navy? Also, maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression that some thinks if only the US would pull back, things would get better. I’m sorry, that power vacuum isn’t going to stay empty, there would be a race to fill that both globally and regionally.
No disagreement with you on any of this. I'm not in favor of isolationism, but I do understand why some gravitate toward that idea. I can't blame them either, especially if they've had a loved one die or become injured in the service. I think we use the military more than we need to. It's a sword, not a scalpel.

But wag the dog and all that. Sometimes looking behind the curtain and seeing who is pulling the strings is scary...and disgusting. Especially when you see those "bitter opponents" laughing about it at a state dinner or a golf vacation.
__________________
Solace is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 11:17   Link #1249
Xellos-_^
Not Enough Sleep
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnimeFan188 View Post
Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger
To The United States:


"Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a
background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and
Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.

The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is
not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger.

In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created,
independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and
resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National
Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The
National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s
co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the
effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no
punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy,
national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack
Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are
dangerous
— and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to
respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be
reversed as soon as possible.

In particular, the report addresses the need for the administration to return to
the flexible response doctrine — a policy where the military was tasked with being
capable of fighting two wars at the same time. Given the current state of affairs
and the threats posed to our nation, the panel felt that the two-war doctrine was
still required to meet our nation’s national security challenges. The man-power
reductions and budget cuts are both reflections of this change in policy, so it must
be altered before that is possible."

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-offic...024816529.html
this report can be summarize by one sentence.

The Military Industrial Complex wants more money.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 11:45   Link #1250
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
No disagreement with you on any of this. I'm not in favor of isolationism, but I do understand why some gravitate toward that idea. I can't blame them either, especially if they've had a loved one die or become injured in the service. I think we use the military more than we need to. It's a sword, not a scalpel.

But wag the dog and all that. Sometimes looking behind the curtain and seeing who is pulling the strings is scary...and disgusting. Especially when you see those "bitter opponents" laughing about it at a state dinner or a golf vacation.
Unfortunately, slimy politician is about as old as the dawn of human civilization, and it’ll probably stay that way until the end.

As for isolationism, regardless of how one may came to feel that way, it doesn’t change the fact that such a move is not only self-defeating, but practically impossible in today’s world. If someone wants isolationism, they’d better start with the destruction of the internet and all modern telecommunication/transportation infrastructures.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
this report can be summarize by one sentence.

The Military Industrial Complex wants more money.
That kind of characterization is about as useful as saying a report about increasing poverty and income disparity = lazy bums want more government hand-out.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 11:47   Link #1251
Libros
I never hid my hurts.
 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Where the wild things are--Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
this report can be summarize by one sentence.

The Military Industrial Complex wants more money.
Because spending 530bn in 2013 alone wasn't enough.

See: how much we are spending on defense/"national security".
__________________
"Let the flesh instruct the mind" - Claudia, Sister Death, Interview with a vampire by Anne rice
Libros is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 11:51   Link #1252
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post

Not that I disagree, but what you say pretty much applies to every single dominant power ever, it’s just the nature of international politics – those without sticks can talk all they want, but nobody else really cares. Also, it’s worth noting that while the failures can be public spectacles, the successes are generally invisible to the general public.
That's because government prefers the general public to remain sheeple.

Quote:
As for isolationism, regardless of how one may came to feel that way, it doesn’t change the fact that such a move is not only self-defeating, but practically impossible in today’s world.
I am pretty sure Solace's not using the "strict" definition of Isolationism. It would be more similar to Japan (before they allow the collective defense thing very recently).

Quote:
That kind of characterization is about as useful as saying a report about increasing poverty and income disparity = lazy bums want more government hand-out.
So lazy bums are as powerful as they are, then these lazy bums must be super genius.

Many politicians ain't entirely patriotic without being selfish, therefore, money is a useful tool. It has an effect on the healthcare policy(as we can clearly see), it also has an effect on foreign policy/military spendings. Indeed, it doesn't prove that the report is biased, and it's jumping to conclusion to accuse it of such. But Xello's not entirely pointless in his statement.

Quote:
I don’t see how the two are related. Those are primarily political/policy failures where the US left it to the local governments to govern effectively, which they have failed to do so spectacularly.
So US spent alot to get rid of Saddam whom they considered an obstacle in the region, but now that ISIS' seizing more control, the US' somehow ambivalent towards this mess.

Quote:
Also, maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression that some thinks if only the US would pull back, things would get better.
Not quite, just that a few of its wars (iraq) appears to be "unnecessary" or miscalculated.

And oh yes, everyone miscalculate occasionally. <-Obligatory comment to save you the trouble of stating the obvious.

Last edited by maplehurry; 2014-08-05 at 12:47.
maplehurry is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 12:13   Link #1253
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libros View Post
Because spending 530bn in 2013 alone wasn't enough.

See: how much we are spending on defense/"national security".
On behalf of others. Do you know why we in SEA are so hellbent on keeping the 7th Fleet here in SEA despite local protests (some of which are orchestrated by the local China embassies)?

Maintaining a military is no easy task, especially when your opponents have switched to asymmetric warfare; where police units are more viable than military units.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 13:19   Link #1254
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by maplehurry View Post
That's because government prefers the general public to remain sheeple.
Not exactly, or are you seriously suggesting things like the details behind trade/policy negotiations, calls between various country’s leaders/senior officials along with the literal mountain piles of subsequent bureaucratic proceedings all be made public and disseminated, thus making said negotiations pretty much impossible in the first place?

Quote:
I am pretty sure Solace's not using the "strict" definition of Isolationism. It would be more similar to Japan (before they allow the collective defense thing very recently).
I was referring more about those along Archon Wing’s line. As for Japan, it was only able to stay “pacifist” because of a relatively weak China and significant US presence both in Japan and S.Korea. Now that China is becoming a significant regional power that’s not shy about asserting its influence, and the US’s Asian pivot proving to be largely a vaporware, it’s not exactly a surprise that Japan is looking to bolster its own military in response.

In short, Japan was able to do what it did because of US support, it would be impossible for the US to go a similar route, as there is no one to support the US in a similar fashion.

Quote:
it doesn’t prove that the report is biased, and it’s jumping to conclusion to accuse it of such. But Xello’s not entirely pointless in his statement.
And that was the point of my analogy. Casual dismissals with broad generalization while jumping to conclusion usually aren’t very inaccurate and rather pointless. The important thing is whether the scenario/principle/logic/conclusion makes sense.

Quote:
So US spent alot to get rid of Saddam whom they considered an obstacle in the region, but now that ISIS' seizing more control, the US' somehow ambivalent towards this mess.
Politics rarely stay static, much less for 10 years in a region as volatile as the middle east, not to mention the shift in domestic perception towards further involvement in Iraq.

Quote:
Not quite, just that a few of its wars (iraq) appears to be "unnecessary" or miscalculated.

And oh yes, everyone miscalculate occasionally. <-Obligatory comment to save you the trouble of stating the obvious.
Necessary or not is probably going to vary depending on your political views, miscalculated for sure however.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 13:29   Link #1255
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Not exactly, or are you seriously suggesting things like the details behind trade/policy negotiations, calls between various country’s leaders/senior officials along with the literal mountain piles of subsequent bureaucratic proceedings all be made public and disseminated, thus making said negotiations pretty much impossible in the first place?
My point here's simply that the governments like to paint themselves in a positive light while doing the opposite for their enemies, with PR slogans like Freedom. They paint an idealistic picture for the public instead of a realist one. In general, the public's not educated on foreign politics, not even at introductory level.

It's like they want to preach "Justice" and stuff to the public for domestic stability, but since you need a different mindset of foreign politics, they shy away from educating the public about it.

Take ww1 for example, the German leaders really wanted war because they thought if they don't do something, Russia would overtake them. But what they told public was simply that they were allied with Austria, therefore, they had to get involved to defend Austria.
maplehurry is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 13:39   Link #1256
Archon_Wing
On a mission
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Not here
Age: 40
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Because of WW2, the Cold War, and the fact that the US wants to remain a superpower. Military strength and infrastructure cannot be mothballed and rebuilt at a moment’s notice, especially in this day and age for a military that depends primarily on air and water for power projection. The days when you can just start a factory and cranking out useful planes and tanks like in WW2 are long gone.

You can substantially reduce the military’s capability if you want, but at the same time you’ll have to be prepared to lose that capability for a very long time – just look at NASA and their struggle to get back out beyond LEO.

If it was that easy to develop military capability, China would have SEA in its bag already.
Well, don't think I'm seriously going to believe that disarmament is a practical option. But this isn't the end of World War II anymore where most of the world lies in ruins while the US's economy is just waiting to grow from it while the looming threat of the Soviet Union necessitates growth in military. Money doesn't grow on trees and we're not exactly in tip top shape-- so maybe I feel we simply have to accept times have to change, and perhaps other places should have to worry about defending themselves first. Okay, that's seemingly a pipe dream in a lot of places. Still, I don't think it's that irresponsible of a decision of the Obama administration to think we are over invested/overextended in these areas.

We've already opened a can for the last 70 years that can never be closed again. Is it okay to take a step back though?

Quote:
May want to send a memo to Putin.
It got lost in the pile.

Well, that is probably why this debate is an issue to begin with. To say that the world is in the hands of some very dangerous people is an understatement.

Quote:
Conflicts don’t automatically escalate to nuclear exchange just because the participants are nuclear powers - Pakistan and India certainly hasn’t nuked each other yet. But you CAN see what happens to countries that unilaterally disarmed itself – see Ukraine.
Like I've said previously, there are plenty of aggressors that do require deterrence. And to be fair, those nuclear weapons despite their bad rap have prevented anyone sane from trying to touch us.

Quote:
I don’t see how the two are related. Those are primarily political/policy failures where the US left it to the local governments to govern effectively, which they have failed to do so spectacularly.
Simply put insurgency and rebellions make it pretty part to occupy a country as opposed to just defeating/conquering them. Though I suppose we're not merely talking about a country coming in and conquering us like what Russia threatens to do with Ukraine.

Quote:
The Soviets were done in primarily by terrible economic policies and management, with a topping of overspending on a military it can’t afford. The biggest crisis facing the US are things like healthcare cost, failing infrastructure, and income distribution etc. We literally spend more than twice as much on healthcare and pension as on defense, yet we have one of the worst healthcare system, and little retirement security, and those are problems that's only getting worse.
Hmm, well that's the thing. Can we afford such a large military? Mismanagement is its own problem.
__________________
It doesn't sound like my love is getting to you.
I will not lose anymore; I will not give up.
More passion than hope, much deeper than despair.... Love!

Avatar/Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 13:43   Link #1257
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by maplehurry View Post
My point here's simply that the governments like to paint themselves in a positive light while doing the opposite for their enemies, with PR slogans like Freedom. They paint an idealistic picture for the public instead of a realist one. In general, the public's not educated on foreign politics, not even at introductory level.

It's like they want to preach "Justice" and stuff to the public for domestic stability, but since you need a different mindset of foreign politics, they shy away from educating the public about it.
The problem with foreign politics has always been more about opinion than facts; you can't really educate anyone with opinion - you can only advice.

Back when my country was having problems with Malaysia about the 3-sen water (google it), they actually printed pamplets to be issued in school with "truths and myths" section. I remembered I was sent outside of the class for asking for the original water agreement that was signed during the British Colonial times.

Having said that, it is about keeping the general public on your side so you have a consistent backing even on the foreground of international politics. Given the expansion of the internet, governments may be able to find support in their opponent's homebase, and opposition in their borders. Then it is all about "media management".

It is good to be a journalist today.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 14:38   Link #1258
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
The problem with foreign politics has always been more about opinion than facts; you can't really educate anyone with opinion - you can only advice.
Agree, though it could also be taught in a historical perspective, which would be closer to facts even though it's still not perfect.


Quote:
Having said that, it is about keeping the general public on your side so you have a consistent backing even on the foreground of international politics. Given the expansion of the internet, governments may be able to find support in their opponent's homebase, and opposition in their borders. Then it is all about "media management".

It is good to be a journalist today.
Hmm, that means if someone wants to apply for a job at foxnews, they should mention being a Republican in their resume. Oh wait, they need to be more "subtle" and complain about how cnn is too liberally biased instead without openly stating being a Republican.
maplehurry is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 14:44   Link #1259
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by maplehurry View Post
Agree, though it could also be taught in a historical perspective, which would be closer to facts even though it's still not perfect.
And people would argue that "history is written by the victors". Oh well, not a wonder why the alternative quote "whatever rocks your boat" was coined.

Quote:
Hmm, that means if someone wants to apply for a job at foxnews, they should mention being a Republican in their resume.
It is hard to hire a town crier that doesn't agree with you, you know.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2014-08-05, 19:12   Link #1260
Ithekro
Gamilas Falls
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
Oh the tone of Saddam, do recall that the first time was because he invaded Kuwait and the US and others went in there to stop him, then left him to stew with an air space restriction and heavy observation for 12 years. Then we decide to go kick his ass after 12 years of nonsense.

Not exactly a quick process.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:32.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.