Rick Santorum, fact free politician!

G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
Racism aside, he'd bring this nation to its knees. Isolationism and "states rights" aren't what we need right now, especially when the fed is the only thing keeping certain states from devolving back to their former glory days of segregation, sister-*******, while also preventing them from adhering strictly to theocratic law.
Completely false statement and shows the lack of intelligence of Americans regarding to their own politics. I'm fricken Dutch and I know more about this guy than most Americans do. It is really sad that a foreigner pays more attention to your politics than you do. It should be your democratic duty to understand what your potential leader is actually saying. Get off your lazy ass and do some research.

First of all, not isolationism, but non interventionism. The world is US sick. Why do you think there are so many nations that hate(Yes HATE) the US? Being(Military) in a zillion countries at the same time, does not improve the image of the US. Being constantly at war doesn't help either. Paul wants to stop these wars which in the end will be better for the US. He doesnt want to stop trade with other countries, which would be totally NON libertarian thing to do. Or is Germany, The Netherlands, Norway etc. also isolationistic? No they are not and are not even remotely that hated as the US, yet most of us are just as free(Socially) as you are.

It is because most Americans lack the understanding of the principle of blowback, that you get stuck in too many unnecessary wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
I'll put aside the fact that your source has "Christian Science" in it, like it's a real science, for my point that is that he is full of **** and is a racist bastard.

Publishing racist newsletters isn't really a huge improvement upon writing them, and in your own link, he is criticized for saying only a handful of sentences were offensive...
You sir are an idiot. What the **** has Christian "science" with the FACTS that are on that page. The facts are not in any regard REVELANT to Christian "science".
These facts are on numerous NON-christian sites anyway. He didnt published them, there was a comparison were he said he was LIKE a publisher, he never really read it. It was only published in his name.

You disregard his total philosophy about something that happened +15 years ago, which he totally disagrees with. Yet with other mistakes of other politicians you see no problem? His ENTIRE philosophy wouldn't work if he was a racist, maybe you need to read a book about libertarianism. Who is the close minded one?(You or mystic?) Yes I am flaming, but get a mirror and you will see hypocrite written on your forehead.
If only there was a highly successful country was built on immigration (legal and otherwise)...
A country with high immigration numbers is not always a good thing. In a country where there free education, free healthcare and high immigration, the system will go bankrupt. Same was/is happening in the Netherlands.

As example: (Made sure there was no CHRISTIAN in the page)
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16742&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
A lack of economic regulation is the reason America is screwed. Don't try to pin this on bull**** math.
Then why is heavy regulated Europe more screwed than the US? Economic policies that are based on the theory of Keynes are doomed to fail, not deregulation.

The world has been lending too much from it's central banks(And they are the big part of the problem) and we are ALL in massive debt. The artifical low interest rates and liberal monetary policy have caused a massive boom and we are now getting to the bust. Any attempt to bail out(Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Greece in Europe) will prolong the economic misery and will not resolve our insolvency issue.
I'm sure their families thank you for plunging them into further poverty. It must be nice not having a conscience.
There are laws for legal immigration. Breaking a law the moment you enter a country does not show good citizenship. Besides, letting everybody immigrate to more prosperous countries in the world, does NOT solve poverty, it only moves it.
As for your nonsensical rant related to what I told Heron:

You took everything you wrote out of context. Very few of the things you talked about applies to America in any way shape or form. If you kept reading, you might have realized you live in a pretty good country, all things considered. If you had paid attention in history class, or in civics class, you might have learned a thing or two and kept you from writing stupid things.

Naturally, any country with a relatively free market and few regulations will have some form of plutocracy - but frankly, this is more a matter of corporations than it is single individuals trying to control everything in a small conspiratory group. We are talking about a socio-economic machine, a framework, that operates in such a way that it is hard for any individual involved to realize their part in the grand scheme of things, blurring the already vague lines of morality that exist in contemporary society.

On your nonsensical rant related to the NWO:

Get the **** out of here.

Come back when you're no longer a racist and a moron.
In dutch we have a good figure of speech for this. De pot verwijt de ketel dat hij zwart ziet.
I think it's obvious that Devion, mysticssjgoku4, and Heron are just trolling.

RFID chips in humans kind of gave it away. I mean, no sane person is going to believe that anyone would do that. So the choice is between utter insanity and trolling. I'm going with trolling.
I did not invoke NWO, RFID chips at ANY time. You sir, have me mistaken for somebody else.
I like how you don't realize that what I said can apply to pretty much every single successful country ever. And how you fail to understand that America's debt doesn't really matter as long as China goes along with it.
You are so wrong. Japan, Europe etc. have massive dollar reserves, if the US prints too much, the currency will devaluate too much and one party will start selling. So no the debt of the US doesnt really matter, until the uninevitable happens, bankruptcy.
And your "statistics" don't seem to take into account how many people of each "race" there are in America. I mean, 4.4% of "white people" is a whole lot more people getting support than every minority combined in America. You should look to your own race if you want to see where all the money goes. The logic for "hidden latinos" doesn't really make any kind of sense, either. If it's not public cost, it's not public cost. Deal with it. Not to mention that a whole ton of your agriculture would fall apart without cheap labour.
Would never happen, it would be more likely that the minimum wage would be removed or agriculture would get more subsidized like in Europe..
Because what you made was a mathematical claim, not a mathematical proof. Show me the math as it should be presented, and I'll stop calling it bull**** and examine it using the analytical toolset I have from university. I sincerely doubt you grasp math to the extent that you can actually make any kind of estimate here, though, so I'm going to stick with calling it bull**** math that's based on your opinion rather than actual reality. The thing about math? It can be proven. Your stuff can't.
While mystic, completely is off on the subject, he is mathematically correct. Same amount of money, more people/resources results in deflation. Most governments want inflation, because they think that is better for the economy(Relates to return on investment). So yes the FED would be printing more money if the immigration was high to counter deflation. However that doesn't make immgration bad. Free education and healthcare for illegal immigrants are.
Your own citizens, who all stemmed from either legal or illegal immigration. Right. There's no hypocrisy here what so ever.

I don't have to. I paid attention in history class. If you don't know what fascism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism are, then that's on you.

Get the **** out of here, Jinx.
It is not hypocretical too be anti immigration as American. A century ago(Or longer) they didn't had free healthcare etc., so people had to make it on their own without putting a burden on society. Things are different now.

Rest is just non argument. If you want to make a point, explain yourself or stfu.
 
Last edited:
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Completely false statement and shows the lack of intelligence of Americans regarding to their own politics. I'm fricken Dutch and I know more about this guy than most Americans do. It is really sad that a foreigner pays more attention to your politics than you do. It should be your democratic duty to understand what your potential leader is actually saying. Get off your lazy ass and do some research.

First of all, not isolationism, but non interventionism. The world is US sick. Why do you think there are so many nations that hate(Yes HATE) the US? Being(Military) in a zillion countries at the same time, does not improve the image of the US. Being constantly at war doesn't help either. Paul wants to stop these wars which in the end will be better for the US. He doesnt want to stop trade with other countries, which would be totally NON libertarian thing to do. Or is Germany, The Netherlands, Norway etc. also isolationistic? No they are not and are not even remotely that hated as the US, yet most of us are just as free(Socially) as you are.

It is because most Americans lack the understanding of the principle of blowback, that you get stuck in too many unnecessary wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
I'm only going to address the part directed at me despite your post being riddled with fallacies and general misunderstanding of the US.

While I applaud you on your vast knowledge of all things Ron Paul, I question whether you are able to see the ramifications of what he proposes to do. If not, perhaps you share the same flaw as Paul. Non-interventionism or Isolationism. You say isolationism requires a cessation of trade. I ask you whether the US had isolationist policies up to WW2. Did we not attempt to stay out of European affairs for as long as possible because it simply wasn't our fight or our business? Was it not one of our stated goals, per George Washington? You opened Pandora's Box, and now you blame everyone but yourselves for what came out.

Whether or not anyone wants to admit it, the US is an empire. Paul's stated goal isn't simply to end our war. If that were the case, he'd have far more support than he currently does. What he wants to do is pull back all of our forces and close down our bases abroad in order to recoup financial losses incurred by our current decade of war. In essence, to use an RTS term, he wants us to turtle. Theoretically, the concept of turtling is fine and dandy as it allows the nation in question, in this case the US, to focus on itself e.g. its infrastructure. He wants to end the empire we've worked so hard to create.

In reality, however, what this would do is create a giant power vacuum. Because every region that has a base or a carrier acts as a counter to another nation. We are a superpower because of what was once our economic superiority, and because of our military superiority. They are mutually exclusive, you see. A powerful military allows us to lean on nations, creating an environment more conducive to trade as it benefits us. A strong economy allows us to build a stronger nation, and a stronger military, which then continues the cycle. So if our forces around the world were to simply return to the womb, what do you think would happen? It'd be bad for America, yeah, but it'd be far, far worse for Europe. Because you rely on us. You don't have to admit it. Not doing so doesn't change reality. And so we have a power vacuum desperately waiting to be filled by various nations. So who fills it?

Is Europe going to occupy this vacuum? Absolutely not, because for the last 60+ years, you've relied on the US to do the heavy lifting for you. Why spend ridiculous amounts of money arming yourselves when you can simply ask your greatest ally to do most of the work for you? Why send your own forces when you can ask the US to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran as a favor, and install someone more favorable toward BP? Why not call for backup in Vietnam when you have a superpower at your beck and call? And thus, in relying on us you've created a global policeman. And why? Because its convenient. Europe gets to focus on its societal issues, creating a better tomorrow for its citizens, while the US focuses on expanding its empire, ensuring that its interests, and by extension the interests of Europe, are secured for the foreseeable future. All at the cost of our individual freedoms and liberties. Europe doesn't really care because they got theirs. They get to look down their noses and comment about how backward we are, as they benefit directly from our barbarism. But it's alright, because what you didn't really count on was the US becoming so powerful as to dictate your own domestic policy. You didn't count on accruing so much debt, not monetary mind you, that you could never hope to repay us for all of the things we've done for you, in our name. Curious, that. And so we're left with this aforementioned vacuum. I can think of one nation desperate to fill that void. That nation isn't entirely friendly to European or American interests. And so it's a lose/lose, really.

As for the US's likability, I didn't realize we were in this to win a popularity contest. Was Rome beloved by everyone it conquered? By those Rome wished to conquer? Was the UK? Was Germany loved while it aspired to conquer the Western world? No, likability does not enter the equation when resources are to be secured for future use by people who have yet to be born.

By all means, look at the small picture, Devion. It seems you have that mindset in spades. Truly, I congratulate you. But before playing armchair President, perhaps you should extend yourself just a little bit, and perhaps think of the consequences of the actions you propose we take. And then remember your place. Because you have no right to tell us what we should and should not do. You wanted to hitch a ride on this boat.

Ride it out until we crash.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Location
New York
Here we have a post where Devion insults all of America for not being educated about our own country. However, let's take a quote from Wikipedia:

Generally, the Dutch do not celebrate their imperial past, and anti-colonial sentiments prevail since the 1960s. Subsequently, colonial history is not featured prominently in Dutch schoolbooks.


The reason he's mad against America is because he's uneducated about his own country. He probably doesn't even realize the ****ed up past they have, because they've swept it under the rug. I'm an American and just by reading that Wikipedia page I probably know more about the Dutch empire than their own citizens do.

edit: For the record, I'm obviously being a little confrontational here, but I'm just tired of seeing the entire world insulting Americans and acting as if their own country has no faults or ignorant people. The fact is, it's easier for a foreigner to be aware of the issues that America faces because of the position America holds, compared to an American being aware of the issues faced by every single other industrialized power.
 
Last edited:
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Completely false statement and shows the lack of intelligence of Americans regarding to their own politics. I'm fricken Dutch and I know more about this guy than most Americans do. It is really sad that a foreigner pays more attention to your politics than you do. It should be your democratic duty to understand what your potential leader is actually saying. Get off your lazy ass and do some research.
Attacking his intelligence and calling him "lazy" was unnecessary for the post he made. Chill out.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
Attacking his intelligence and calling him "lazy" was unnecessary for the post he made. Chill out.
Yep, that's the final warning. One more heated post that is more attack and less discuss will get this locked down.
 
Member
✔️ HL Verified
Discord Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
379
Best answers
0
Location
the Netherlands
Devion, I can't see why you're upset about this. This isn't the first time public American figures said something blatant about Holland.
I don't see why everytime a topic like this arrises a public rant against the US occurs. Your rant against our American forum members is totally uncalled for and could easily be avoided by using simple logic and counterstatements.

Having that said, Sub, the reason why the Dutch don't celebrate our imperial past is because we're not proud of it. We've done horrible things to the inhabitants of countries like Indonesia, Surinam and others.
This is also the reason why it's not featured in history schoolbooks. In the (generally) two year on school we are taught more global history, where as (i believe) students who choose history as their major subject will be taught more detailed history like our imperial past.
And Sub, most of us(if not all) Dutchies know about our imperial past.

Again, fellow Dutchies, there's no reason to rant on Americans, cause most of them already know some stuff is screwed up.

Back to topic, Rick you make me chuckle.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Location
New York
I'm not saying that the Dutch should celebrate their imperial past, but I was actually surprised to find out it wasn't in school textbooks. I think everyone should learn a broad global history, but I also think it's important to know the history of your own nation and culture. It just seems like a way of sidestepping an issue that no one wants to be reminded of.

I'd imagine that children in Germany are taught what their nation did in World War 2. Teaching the information does not mean that you approve of what was done. I know that for myself, quite a lot of time in history class was spent talking about the atrocities America committed in regards to slavery, native Americans, Japanese-American citizens in WW2, etc.

I'm not trying to pick on your country with this post. It just seems strange to me. Although to be fair, I'm sure there are many more horrible things that America has done that are also never mentioned in textbooks. Also, the comment about Dutch people being unaware of their past was only said to counter the remark that Americans are unaware of what is going on with the American government. Absurd comment meant to shed light on another absurd comment.
 
Last edited:
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
Then why is heavy regulated Europe more screwed than the US? Economic policies that are based on the theory of Keynes are doomed to fail, not deregulation.
How is Europe more screwed than the US? Norway came out of the recession ridiculously well. Food is slightly more expensive, but other than that, I can barely tell there has even been a recession. You need to stop making blanket statements about Europe. Clearly you don't know enough about it.

In dutch we have a good figure of speech for this.
That makes no sense in this context (and that saying exists in English, so by writing it in Dutch, you're basically just showing an ignorance of the language that this forum uses)

Do you know what context is? I'm feeling helpful, so here is a definition of context:
[h=3]con·text/ˈkäntekst/[/h]
Noun:

  1. The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
  2. The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
There are laws for legal immigration. Breaking a law the moment you enter a country does not show good citizenship. Besides, letting everybody immigrate to more prosperous countries in the world, does NOT solve poverty, it only moves it.
I was referring to him feeling proud about it. If he were a poor Mexicans with mouths to feed, I doubt he'd do it any differently. Illegal immigrants work hard for next to nothing, because they know that they'll be deported if they don't. Get off your high horse. You live in the Netherlands, it's not exactly a country accustomed to poverty. If you feel proud that you are making someone's life even harder than it already was, then there is something wrong with you.

Certainly, immigration won't solve all that much, but that doesn't give you the right to be an ******* about it. Immigrants are people just like you.

I did not invoke NWO, RFID chips at ANY time. You sir, have me mistaken for somebody else.
I was referring to your part in agreeing with the racism. I was referring to them in general insanity. From the context, it's pretty clear that I'm not talking about you in those specific cases.
You are so wrong. Japan, Europe etc. have massive dollar reserves, if the US prints too much, the currency will devaluate too much and one party will start selling. So no the debt of the US doesnt really matter, until the uninevitable happens, bankruptcy.
Maybe they should have thought about that before they made risky investments.

Would never happen, it would be more likely that the minimum wage would be removed or agriculture would get more subsidized like in Europe..
It's already subsidized, and Americans won't work for **** pay. That's the point.

While mystic, completely is off on the subject, he is mathematically correct. Same amount of money, more people/resources results in deflation. Most governments want inflation, because they think that is better for the economy(Relates to return on investment). So yes the FED would be printing more money if the immigration was high to counter deflation. However that doesn't make immgration bad. Free education and healthcare for illegal immigrants are.
You're not taking into account all the factors here. I'll leave your brain to work this one out, it's fairly simple. And it should be noted that illegal immigrants don't get free education or healthcare in the USA.

It is not hypocretical too be anti immigration as American. A century ago(Or longer) they didn't had free healthcare etc., so people had to make it on their own without putting a burden on society. Things are different now.

Rest is just non argument. If you want to make a point, explain yourself or stfu.
Do you think illegal immigrants get everything handed to them on a plate?

@Zeo:

Whereas I disagree with your use of rhetoric and that all of Europe is what you describe it to be, I agree that if America backed down, it would create a power vacuum. Europe simply does not have the resources, the unity, or the mentality to go to war to secure western economic growth. If America became isolationist, then two things would happen:

a) Another nation, or collection of nations would seize power
b) America and Europe would be left vulnerable

Neither of these things are likely to be good for global stability.
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
I'm only going to address the part directed at me despite your post being riddled with fallacies and general misunderstanding of the US.

While I applaud you on your vast knowledge of all things Ron Paul, I question whether you are able to see the ramifications of what he proposes to do. If not, perhaps you share the same flaw as Paul. Non-interventionism or Isolationism. You say isolationism requires a cessation of trade. I ask you whether the US had isolationist policies up to WW2. Did we not attempt to stay out of European affairs for as long as possible because it simply wasn't our fight or our business? Was it not one of our stated goals, per George Washington? You opened Pandora's Box, and now you blame everyone but yourselves for what came out.

Whether or not anyone wants to admit it, the US is an empire. Paul's stated goal isn't simply to end our war. If that were the case, he'd have far more support than he currently does. What he wants to do is pull back all of our forces and close down our bases abroad in order to recoup financial losses incurred by our current decade of war. In essence, to use an RTS term, he wants us to turtle. Theoretically, the concept of turtling is fine and dandy as it allows the nation in question, in this case the US, to focus on itself e.g. its infrastructure. He wants to end the empire we've worked so hard to create.

In reality, however, what this would do is create a giant power vacuum. Because every region that has a base or a carrier acts as a counter to another nation. We are a superpower because of what was once our economic superiority, and because of our military superiority. They are mutually exclusive, you see. A powerful military allows us to lean on nations, creating an environment more conducive to trade as it benefits us. A strong economy allows us to build a stronger nation, and a stronger military, which then continues the cycle. So if our forces around the world were to simply return to the womb, what do you think would happen? It'd be bad for America, yeah, but it'd be far, far worse for Europe. Because you rely on us. You don't have to admit it. Not doing so doesn't change reality. And so we have a power vacuum desperately waiting to be filled by various nations. So who fills it?
Completely valid point to make that their is a power vacuum when you leave the middle east. But that's the point. The US has no business in the middle east. The presence and action against the middle east even invoked most terrorist attacks. These regions aren't within the US borders, they are sovereign countries. Military presence isn't needed for trade, nor does it help foreign relations. US retracting their troops will save money and will not start wars. Unlike the US in the past, most countries can't afford a war.(For starters, Iran)

The US saves money and still can intervene if it is really needed. Having a zillion bases does not help.
Is Europe going to occupy this vacuum? Absolutely not, because for the last 60+ years, you've relied on the US to do the heavy lifting for you. Why spend ridiculous amounts of money arming yourselves when you can simply ask your greatest ally to do most of the work for you? Why send your own forces when you can ask the US to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran as a favor, and install someone more favorable toward BP? Why not call for backup in Vietnam when you have a superpower at your beck and call? And thus, in relying on us you've created a global policeman. And why? Because its convenient. Europe gets to focus on its societal issues, creating a better tomorrow for its citizens, while the US focuses on expanding its empire, ensuring that its interests, and by extension the interests of Europe, are secured for the foreseeable future. All at the cost of our individual freedoms and liberties. Europe doesn't really care because they got theirs. They get to look down their noses and comment about how backward we are, as they benefit directly from our barbarism. But it's alright, because what you didn't really count on was the US becoming so powerful as to dictate your own domestic policy. You didn't count on accruing so much debt, not monetary mind you, that you could never hope to repay us for all of the things we've done for you, in our name. Curious, that. And so we're left with this aforementioned vacuum. I can think of one nation desperate to fill that void. That nation isn't entirely friendly to European or American interests. And so it's a lose/lose, really.
No it causes hatred throughout the world. Being the policeman and meddling with things that aren't of your concern will result in serious blowbacks. The US war in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were very stupid. Just look at the consequences. The only reason the Americans "liberated" Europe was so that the Sovjets didn't have full control of Europe. That was pure self interest, not to mention the Marshall plan that was shuffed through Europe's throat.

While Europe is grateful that the US helped the Allies "liberating" Europe, it doesn't mean we wanted the US to create an empire to rule the world, nor does it benefit anyone but the US self, although long term only damages it.
As for the US's likability, I didn't realize we were in this to win a popularity contest. Was Rome beloved by everyone it conquered? By those Rome wished to conquer? Was the UK? Was Germany loved while it aspired to conquer the Western world? No, likability does not enter the equation when resources are to be secured for future use by people who have yet to be born.

By all means, look at the small picture, Devion. It seems you have that mindset in spades. Truly, I congratulate you. But before playing armchair President, perhaps you should extend yourself just a little bit, and perhaps think of the consequences of the actions you propose we take. And then remember your place. Because you have no right to tell us what we should and should not do. You wanted to hitch a ride on this boat.

Ride it out until we crash.
Rome invoked slavery and it empire was hated in the occupied territories. In the end they got over stretched and went bankrupt, guess were the US is going. Empires are never loved, nor beneficial. They start unnecessary wars and hurt economic growth and deteriorate civil liberties. I'm not telling you what the US should do. I'm telling that the foreign policy of Ron Paul would be beneficial to the whole world and would actually prevent terrorists to bomb the US as they have no motivation to do so.

Rest of argument, all the way below.
Here we have a post where Devion insults all of America for not being educated about our own country. However, let's take a quote from Wikipedia:

Generally, the Dutch do not celebrate their imperial past, and anti-colonial sentiments prevail since the 1960s. Subsequently, colonial history is not featured prominently in Dutch schoolbooks.

The reason he's mad against America is because he's uneducated about his own country. He probably doesn't even realize the ****ed up past they have, because they've swept it under the rug. I'm an American and just by reading that Wikipedia page I probably know more about the Dutch empire than their own citizens do.

edit: For the record, I'm obviously being a little confrontational here, but I'm just tired of seeing the entire world insulting Americans and acting as if their own country has no faults or ignorant people. The fact is, it's easier for a foreigner to be aware of the issues that America faces because of the position America holds, compared to an American being aware of the issues faced by every single other industrialized power.
Wtf? So I can't criticizing the US because my ancestors were as bad as the US is? Your argument is holds no logic. I would be against the Dutch empire if it existed today as I am against the US empire.
Devion, I can't see why you're upset about this. This isn't the first time public American figures said something blatant about Holland.
I don't see why everytime a topic like this arrises a public rant against the US occurs. Your rant against our American forum members is totally uncalled for and could easily be avoided by using simple logic and counterstatements.
You should read my posts, I'm not pissed at Santorum, it's standard election rhetoric. I think I didn't even address it in this topic.
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
How is Europe more screwed than the US? Norway came out of the recession ridiculously well. Food is slightly more expensive, but other than that, I can barely tell there has even been a recession. You need to stop making blanket statements about Europe. Clearly you don't know enough about it.
Now you are being ignorant of the economics of your own country. First of all you still have your own currency and have a lot of oil. Also you don't participate in the EU and thus not in the bailout packages. Also your country has a relative small banking sector. So that you don't feel that much of the recession is pretty logical. But guess what, the rest of Europe isn't Norway.

You can't compare Norway or Switzerland to any other European country as they are not part of the EU and have special economic positions.(Both not part of EU and own currency)

And just a little fact I'm a have bachelor in Economics, so yeah, I do know my basic economic theories. Europe is royally screwed. Italy's and Spain's banking sector is on the verge of collapsing. Youth unemployment in Spain and Portugal is above 25%. Greece can never pay it debt back. Hungary has a serious problem with Austrian loans, also screwing Austria over. The Netherlands has a WAY too high mortgage debt. And I can go on and on. US is getting rid of it's bad debt and can print money and therefore isn't likely to default in the near future. Europe doesn't have this luxury, especially because of Germany would are very weary of hyperinflation.
That makes no sense in this context (and that saying exists in English, so by writing it in Dutch, you're basically just showing an ignorance of the language that this forum uses)

Do you know what context is? I'm feeling helpful, so here is a definition of context:
[h=3]con·text/ˈkäntekst/[/h]
Noun:

  1. The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
  2. The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.


I was referring to him feeling proud about it. If he were a poor Mexicans with mouths to feed, I doubt he'd do it any differently. Illegal immigrants work hard for next to nothing, because they know that they'll be deported if they don't. Get off your high horse. You live in the Netherlands, it's not exactly a country accustomed to poverty. If you feel proud that you are making someone's life even harder than it already was, then there is something wrong with you.

Certainly, immigration won't solve all that much, but that doesn't give you the right to be an ******* about it. Immigrants are people just like you.
No the Netherlands doesn't know real poverty, neither does Norway. Your point? However we are very familiar with the issues of illegal immigration. It doesn't work, the taxpayers are the ones getting screwed over, because they need to fund the healthcare and education. I'm not being an ass about immigration, I simply stating the facts. Also most of these illegal immigrants don't pay taxes so the public sector will have a big expense to cover as most of illegal immigrants can use things provided by the public sector, like free education and healthcare.

Mexicans immigrating to the US does not help themselves. I'm trying to prevent from making these mistakes. Poverty, as you agree, doesn't vanish with immigration. There are much better ways, like free trade.

And yes it did make sense, you are calling mystic a bigot, but you are no better yourself. So keep your moral "superiority" to yourself.
I was referring to your part in agreeing with the racism. I was referring to them in general insanity. From the context, it's pretty clear that I'm not talking about you in those specific cases.
You are flaming, DBS told us not to. While I agree invoking NWO and RFID is a bit much, my posts are free of these things nor are the things I said even remotely "insane".
Maybe they should have thought about that before they made risky investments.
You are dodging the issues, you said as long as China keep the dollar up. You were wrong about this, so don't make an argument that I am not trying to make.
It's already subsidized, and Americans won't work for **** pay. That's the point.
READ "more subsidized".
You're not taking into account all the factors here. I'll leave your brain to work this one out, it's fairly simple. And it should be noted that illegal immigrants don't get free education or healthcare in the USA.
Yes they do: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/03/illegal-immigrants-cause-public-school-crisis/
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/health_care.html

Just use google, you will get enough hits if these sources won't suit you.
Do you think illegal immigrants get everything handed to them on a plate?
No, did I ever said such a thing?

I sympathize with the reasons for illegal immigrating, but it most cases doesn't do anyone any good.
@Zeo:

Whereas I disagree with your use of rhetoric and that all of Europe is what you describe it to be, I agree that if America backed down, it would create a power vacuum. Europe simply does not have the resources, the unity, or the mentality to go to war to secure western economic growth. If America became isolationist, then two things would happen:

a) Another nation, or collection of nations would seize power
b) America and Europe would be left vulnerable

Neither of these things are likely to be good for global stability.
No country in the world would be able to do that. Russia doesn't have the military anymore(And would hurt economic interests), China wouldn't do it because it would hurt their economic interest. But the most important reason, the US army. That the army isn't all over the world doesn't mean it completely vanished. Hell even Russia isn't stupid enough to conquer Georgia(The country, not US state), because they know they would get their asses handed to them. But you don't need your army all over the world for that. The threat of being able to mobilize an army like the US has, should be enough of a threat.

The real problem is, if the US army doesn't retreat from it's million bases over the world, it will go bankrupt and won't even be able to maintain it's army. THAT is when the power vacuum really comes into effect. Why the **** still have bases in Germany?

EDIT: Sorry for double post, but reached maximum character limit.
 
Last edited:
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Completely valid point to make that their is a power vacuum when you leave the middle east. But that's the point. The US has no business in the middle east. The presence and action against the middle east even invoked most terrorist attacks. These regions aren't within the US borders, they are sovereign countries. Military presence isn't needed for trade, nor does it help foreign relations. US retracting their troops will save money and will not start wars. Unlike the US in the past, most countries can't afford a war.(For starters, Iran)

I was not referring solely to the Middle East, as Ron Paul has stated he would pull back troops from across the planet. I'm fairly certain you have absolutely no idea just how prevalent and widespread US forces are in the world right now, but the ME is but one theater we're currently engaged in, and arguably the least important. The Pentagon does not plan for 10 years from now. It plans for 100 years from now, and so nations of actual importance are to be countered and taken into consideration. Our fleet is the greatest this planet has ever seen. Our forces are capable of striking anywhere on this planet within 24 hours. One does not gain this ability by accident. One does not gain this ability through the use of a small and inferior military. You are clueless as to just how big of a power vacuum the US would leave behind in its wake should it choose to abandon the world at large.

As for a strong, and overwhelming presence not aiding in facilitating trade, well, you're wrong to say the least. We've leaned on nations across the world countless times, and have gotten what we wanted not because we had strong industries, but because the threat of being disposed through "rebellion" was all too real. This same fear and respect of our military power and influence as a result of said power combined with economic strength has allowed us to negotiate terms that are always favorable to us and ours. This is true of diplomacy, this is true of trade agreements, this is true of arbitration. If a superior military force was not required to attain the rank of super power, why, then, are none of Europe's nations considered such? Why, then, is no one concerned with Europe overtaking the US as the primary power on the planet? As I said before, economic and military superiority are mutually exclusive so far as super power status is concerned. You need to have a bite to back your bark, and you need capital to finance that bark.

Fact of the matter is, if we are to obtain everything we want, we need to take it from someone else. Wealth does not simply appear. Resources are not simply magicked into existence. This is not a new lesson. This is very much something we learned from Europe. You rely on our military strength, yes, but you also take it for granted. Everyone does. You were born in a world where the US was already the Top Dog. You are incapable, it appears, of understanding what a world with someone else as a front runner would be like.
The US saves money and still can intervene if it is really needed. Having a zillion bases does not help.

Can it? How does one intervene when our forces are now placed squarely on the opposite side of the world? Do you understand the logistics of moving a force like ours across the planet? Do you understand the cost? The time it'd take us to mobilize would mean countless lives would be lost by the time we arrived. Not that it matters, of course, because why would we aid anyone? The point was to no longer intervene. The point was to let the world take care of itself, while we focus on ourselves. The point was to cripple our empire. Whatever happens after that is on you. We don't care. It isn't our business to care. It isn't personal, mind you. We're just no longer playing that game. It's what you wanted, after all.

No it causes hatred throughout the world. Being the policeman and meddling with things that aren't of your concern will result in serious blowbacks. The US war in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were very stupid. Just look at the consequences. The only reason the Americans "liberated" Europe was so that the Sovjets didn't have full control of Europe. That was pure self interest, not to mention the Marshall plan that was shuffed through Europe's throat.

I can appreciate that you recently learned the meaning of blowback, but what you need to understand is blowback simply means consequence. There are consequences for all of our actions. That includes yours. Our actions are more overt, and on a larger scale, so the consequences are generally similar in nature. But again, our goal here is not to be loved. I do not need you to like me. I do not need you to love me. What I need you to do, however, is as I say. And on that front, we're succeeding quite well, thank you. Because so far as trade and your respective militaries are concerned, you tend to follow our lead, whether you know it or not. Whether you like it or not. Our influence is a pervading force, and is not limited to our shores or to our enemies. Instead, its even stronger among our allies as, again, what benefits us, benefits you. And again, we're willing to do most of the heavy lifting. If you can't reject our influence, what chance do the others have?

But I digress. Your unwillingness and general inability to understand the larger picture keeps you from understanding the strategic importance of each of the wars you mentioned. You appear wholly unfamiliar with the Cold War, to include the direct aftermath of WW2, and the purpose of Iraq 2 and Afghanistan. This isn't surprising, however, as you seem only to repeat what you read, and then, not very well.


While Europe is grateful that the US helped the Allies "liberating" Europe, it doesn't mean we wanted the US to create an empire to rule the world, nor does it benefit anyone but the US self, although long term only damages it.
And yet it happened, anyway. Funny, that. Obviously, you're still completely wrong in believing our little escapades don't benefit our allies, primarily Europe as you are our closest group of allies. Were our fates not so desperately intertwined, I think, perhaps, Europe would push back a little more forcefully as far as the US is concerned.

Rome invoked slavery and it empire was hated in the occupied territories. In the end they got over stretched and went bankrupt, guess were the US is going. Empires are never loved, nor beneficial. They start unnecessary wars and hurt economic growth and deteriorate civil liberties. I'm not telling you what the US should do. I'm telling that the foreign policy of Ron Paul would be beneficial to the whole world and would actually prevent terrorists to bomb the US as they have no motivation to do so.

Rome was also one of the greatest civilizations of all time, responsible for more technological advances, inventions, societal contributions and who knows what else than we'll ever know and the loss of said civilization was a loss to humanity. They don't call it the Dark Ages because everyone was happy the core of human civilization had finally succumbed to an accumulation of mistakes and miscalculations over the decades. Are we to also deny the great impact Britain made and pretend they were a bunch of barbarians who were responsible for everything terrible and nothing good? Please.

Rest of argument, all the way below.

Wtf? So I can't criticizing the US because my ancestors were as bad as the US is? Your argument is holds no logic. I would be against the Dutch empire if it existed today as I am against the US empire.

He's stating you know little about your own history, as its your state's SOP to ignore certain aspects of its past, a concept which then extends to an American concept of American history as the same is undoubtedly true in several states. That said, however, you know very little about our political process, why we do the things we do and how we go about doing it. Attempting to insult my intelligence because you think you know a little bit about a single candidate says more about you than it does about me. While you may prance about and argue about such things on your spare time, I live this. This is my life, and this is what I do. Because, you see, I am the heavy lifter. I am the one they send when our nation needs to get its hands dirty. And it helps to know exactly what you're getting into if you want to survive.
Come at me, bro.
 
Last edited:
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
You said:
No country in the world would be able to do that. Russia doesn't have the military anymore(And would hurt economic interests), China wouldn't do it because it would hurt their economic interest. But the most important reason, the US army. That the army isn't all over the world doesn't mean it completely vanished. Hell even Russia isn't stupid enough to conquer Georgia(The country, not US state), because they know they would get their asses handed to them. But you don't need your army all over the world for that. The threat of being able to mobilize an army like the US has, should be enough of a threat.

The real problem is, if the US army doesn't retreat from it's million bases over the world, it will go bankrupt and won't even be able to maintain it's army. THAT is when the power vacuum really comes into effect. Why the **** still have bases in Germany?


Once more, you illustrate just how little you understand what you're talking about. First off, Russia is prepared to spend something along $750 billion over the next decade modernizing their military. So there's that. Secondly, China is already attempting to increase its sphere of influence in the Pacific. Because of our focus on the ME for the last decade, we've overlooked the Pacific allowing China to pressure and form ties with nations that would usually do no such thing, provided they felt we'd back them every step of the way. That's what our influence as a military powerhouse allows us and our allies to do: Ignore and prepare for potential enemies in our AOs. Increasing their sphere of influence would only serve to empower China's economy, as they'd now have new markets to sell to, control and dominate, and they'd be able to lean on those nations to do as China desires. China and Russia are business partners, so they'd obviously be working together in the same capacity as the US and Europe currently does. Russia's sphere of influence increases toward western Europe, China begins to encompass more of the Pacific. Then, of course, Russia has ties to South America, which isn't entirely friendly to the US after several decades of general asshattery on our part, and China is working on Africa through a kind of colonialism. And obviously, both countries have interests in the ME, and allies to boot. The US disappears from the equation in the ME, and guess who's going to be buddy buddy with China and Russia? Our former allies.

And so we're back to your idea of interventionism, which you don't seem to understand in the least. Why would our military intervene on anyone's behalf? Why would we send troops across the world when we can now focus on domestic production and ourselves, creating a better tomorrow? Without the expenditures of fighting wars and proxy wars and maintaining bases around the world, we suddenly have an influx of capital which would allow us to modernize in a way previously thought impossible. In 30 years time, we could be on Mars if we really wanted to, and beyond if we cared enough to.

Where does the "US army" come into play, here? What logistical capability allows us to suddenly move just the army (apparently) across the world and for what purpose, if not to fight a war? Where are our boys getting stationed? We no longer have fobs, so that's a no go. You're suggesting we start doing what we're already doing, except in such a way that we can't feasibly hope to win. And what about the other branches? How are they getting anywhere when the funding is no longer available? Why would we have a large military force if we're not on the offensive? If we're no longer an expeditionary force? Do you know why China's military isn't taken seriously? Because even if they had 3 million troops, they can't move them anywhere. Logistically speaking, they're ****ed. That's our greatest advantage, and you're telling us to throw it away.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret. If we ended the war in Afghanistan, and kept all of our bases, we still wouldn't be bankrupt. In fact, we'd be just fine. The war is whats bleeding us. You have no concept of how much money it takes to maintain, move and feed the military. The bases around the world represent but a tiny fraction of the military budget. Most of it is going to the Ghan. End the war, end the senseless expenditures. Keep the Empire.

Simple.
 
Last edited:
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
Cool it with the personal attacks.

I disagree with you because a + b = q, not c, is okay.

You are x because you don't understand q, is going in the wrong direction.

Please refrain from belittling other forum members. Even if its only slightly right now, that's what causes blood pressure to rise and tempers to flare. You don't need to insult others to make your point.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
My apologies.
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
I was not referring solely to the Middle East, as Ron Paul has stated he would pull back troops from across the planet. I'm fairly certain you have absolutely no idea just how prevalent and widespread US forces are in the world right now, but the ME is but one theater we're currently engaged in, and arguably the least important. The Pentagon does not plan for 10 years from now. It plans for 100 years from now, and so nations of actual importance are to be countered and taken into consideration. Our fleet is the greatest this planet has ever seen. Our forces are capable of striking anywhere on this planet within 24 hours. One does not gain this ability by accident. One does not gain this ability through the use of a small and inferior military. You are clueless as to just how big of a power vacuum the US would leave behind in its wake should it choose to abandon the world at large.
Do not assume, because you will make an ass out of u and me. Your fleet will soon be bankrupt if you don't

The power vacuum(tm) left behind by retreating forces is really a non argument(But a valid point). Yes there will be a power vacuum, but by whom will it be filled? There isn't going to be a new empire that is going to pick that up. Nobody has the resources. The power vacuum is going to be filled by countries that were occupied by the US. Nothing bad is going to happen, that's all in your head.
As for a strong, and overwhelming presence not aiding in facilitating trade, well, you're wrong to say the least. We've leaned on nations across the world countless times, and have gotten what we wanted not because we had strong industries, but because the threat of being disposed through "rebellion" was all too real. This same fear and respect of our military power and influence as a result of said power combined with economic strength has allowed us to negotiate terms that are always favorable to us and ours. This is true of diplomacy, this is true of trade agreements, this is true of arbitration. If a superior military force was not required to attain the rank of super power, why, then, are none of Europe's nations considered such? Why, then, is no one concerned with Europe overtaking the US as the primary power on the planet? As I said before, economic and military superiority are mutually exclusive so far as super power status is concerned. You need to have a bite to back your bark, and you need capital to finance that bark.
No we actually don't the US isn't a threat for Europe, nor Russia, nor China. The US needs us more than we do need them. The US is going bankrupt if you haven't noticed. Just like the Roman Empire, your empire is can be financed with new conquests. If you don't cut back your military, than your poor understanding of economics will.
Fact of the matter is, if we are to obtain everything we want, we need to take it from someone else. Wealth does not simply appear. Resources are not simply magicked into existence. This is not a new lesson. This is very much something we learned from Europe. You rely on our military strength, yes, but you also take it for granted. Everyone does. You were born in a world where the US was already the Top Dog. You are incapable, it appears, of understanding what a world with someone else as a front runner would be like.
We don't need the US for that. You live in a fantasy world that mutual trade does not exists without US threating these nations. We traded 400 years ago already with the most isolationistic nation that ever existed, without the threat of invading it. This country was Shogunate Japan.
Can it? How does one intervene when our forces are now placed squarely on the opposite side of the world? Do you understand the logistics of moving a force like ours across the planet? Do you understand the cost? The time it'd take us to mobilize would mean countless lives would be lost by the time we arrived. Not that it matters, of course, because why would we aid anyone? The point was to no longer intervene. The point was to let the world take care of itself, while we focus on ourselves. The point was to cripple our empire. Whatever happens after that is on you. We don't care. It isn't our business to care. It isn't personal, mind you. We're just no longer playing that game. It's what you wanted, after all.
You understanding of Paul's foreign policy is still very poor. You would still have allies and the threat of retaliation would be more than enough to keep other nations at bay. The reason you want to intervene is when your economic interest are being threaten. Why do you think the US entered WW1? Germany sunk every commercial ship between UK and US.
I can appreciate that you recently learned the meaning of blowback, but what you need to understand is blowback simply means consequence. There are consequences for all of our actions. That includes yours. Our actions are more overt, and on a larger scale, so the consequences are generally similar in nature. But again, our goal here is not to be loved. I do not need you to like me. I do not need you to love me. What I need you to do, however, is as I say. And on that front, we're succeeding quite well, thank you. Because so far as trade and your respective militaries are concerned, you tend to follow our lead, whether you know it or not. Whether you like it or not. Our influence is a pervading force, and is not limited to our shores or to our enemies. Instead, its even stronger among our allies as, again, what benefits us, benefits you. And again, we're willing to do most of the heavy lifting. If you can't reject our influence, what chance do the others have?
You are belittling again. Your whole train of thought shows your own undoing. The US needs the world more than the world needs the US. Furthermore the influence of the US is getting smaller and smaller. Even already a couple of years ago, the Dutch actually decided to do less trade with the US because of it's pending economic collapse. Germany(And even France a bit) has much more influence in Europe than the US has.

The US military presence throughout the world is not needed. You have illusions of grandeur of the capabilities of the US military and it's importance.(Yes you can bomb every country in the world, but that not going to happen unless you want a rebellion in your own country)
But I digress. Your unwillingness and general inability to understand the larger picture keeps you from understanding the strategic importance of each of the wars you mentioned. You appear wholly unfamiliar with the Cold War, to include the direct aftermath of WW2, and the purpose of Iraq 2 and Afghanistan. This isn't surprising, however, as you seem only to repeat what you read, and then, not very well.
Your inability to see the economic consequences of your actions will lead you to your own downfall.
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
764
Best answers
0
Rome was also one of the greatest civilizations of all time, responsible for more technological advances, inventions, societal contributions and who knows what else than we'll ever know and the loss of said civilization was a loss to humanity. They don't call it the Dark Ages because everyone was happy the core of human civilization had finally succumbed to an accumulation of mistakes and miscalculations over the decades. Are we to also deny the great impact Britain made and pretend they were a bunch of barbarians who were responsible for everything terrible and nothing good? Please.
No Rome wasn't responsible for the technogical advances, inventions, societal contributions, that was Greece. And yes there is a big difference in that. But to get to the point. Rome wasn't all that great, it destroyed millions of lives throughout Europe, enslaved thousands, destroying the sovereignty of hunderds of tribes/nations. You only look at the "positives" and think they are the result of the empire. That is a logical fallacy, inventions aren't result of an empire, they are the result of scientists, philosophers and common men. An empire does mostly not contribute to that.
He's stating you know little about your own history, as its your state's SOP to ignore certain aspects of its past, a concept which then extends to an American concept of American history as the same is undoubtedly true in several states. That said, however, you know very little about our political process, why we do the things we do and how we go about doing it. Attempting to insult my intelligence because you think you know a little bit about a single candidate says more about you than it does about me. While you may prance about and argue about such things on your spare time, I live this. This is my life, and this is what I do. Because, you see, I am the heavy lifter. I am the one they send when our nation needs to get its hands dirty. And it helps to know exactly what you're getting into if you want to survive.
More senseless rethoric. The reason I stated that he knew little about his politics was because of his obvious FAULTS in his posts about this candidate. To than reply, "oh you know little about your own history" is just more dodging on his part. I did not state anything about Dutch history, so there is no way of him knowing what I do know about it and what I don't.

And furthermore we don't need the US military "help". The only reason you intervene is for your own interest. Yet the US fails to see the blowbacks that goes with it.
Once more, you illustrate just how little you understand what you're talking about. First off, Russia is prepared to spend something along $750 billion over the next decade modernizing their military. So there's that. Secondly, China is already attempting to increase its sphere of influence in the Pacific. Because of our focus on the ME for the last decade, we've overlooked the Pacific allowing China to pressure and form ties with nations that would usually do no such thing, provided they felt we'd back them every step of the way. That's what our influence as a military powerhouse allows us and our allies to do: Ignore and prepare for potential enemies in our AOs. Increasing their sphere of influence would only serve to empower China's economy, as they'd now have new markets to sell to, control and dominate, and they'd be able to lean on those nations to do as China desires. China and Russia are business partners, so they'd obviously be working together in the same capacity as the US and Europe currently does. Russia's sphere of influence increases toward western Europe, China begins to encompass more of the Pacific. Then, of course, Russia has ties to South America, which isn't entirely friendly to the US after several decades of general asshattery on our part, and China is working on Africa through a kind of colonialism. And obviously, both countries have interests in the ME, and allies to boot. The US disappears from the equation in the ME, and guess who's going to be buddy buddy with China and Russia? Our former allies.
I knew when I invoked Russia you would say that. You do know what the budget of the US military or that of Germany? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures 750 billion(Over 10 years) is really not that much, especially when you look at US or EU total.

And that China and Russia are expanding their influence is actually not a bad thing. They are getting more valuable trading partners than the US and don't declare a war everytime somebody farts the wrong way. Your aggresiveness is repelling people you need.
And so we're back to your idea of interventionism, which you don't seem to understand in the least. Why would our military intervene on anyone's behalf? Why would we send troops across the world when we can now focus on domestic production and ourselves, creating a better tomorrow? Without the expenditures of fighting wars and proxy wars and maintaining bases around the world, we suddenly have an influx of capital which would allow us to modernize in a way previously thought impossible. In 30 years time, we could be on Mars if we really wanted to, and beyond if we cared enough to.
It's not my idea of interventionism, it's the definition of interventionism. The US is doing what you are describing, intervening in things that are non of their business but somehow see a benefit for themselves. Your militarism is hurting your own economy very badly. You should focus on domestic production than wasting on non beneficial militarism.
Where does the "US army" come into play, here? What logistical capability allows us to suddenly move just the army (apparently) across the world and for what purpose, if not to fight a war? Where are our boys getting stationed? We no longer have fobs, so that's a no go. You're suggesting we start doing what we're already doing, except in such a way that we can't feasibly hope to win. And what about the other branches? How are they getting anywhere when the funding is no longer available? Why would we have a large military force if we're not on the offensive? If we're no longer an expeditionary force? Do you know why China's military isn't taken seriously? Because even if they had 3 million troops, they can't move them anywhere. Logistically speaking, they're ****ed. That's our greatest advantage, and you're telling us to throw it away.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret. If we ended the war in Afghanistan, and kept all of our bases, we still wouldn't be bankrupt. In fact, we'd be just fine. The war is whats bleeding us. You have no concept of how much money it takes to maintain, move and feed the military. The bases around the world represent but a tiny fraction of the military budget. Most of it is going to the Ghan. End the war, end the senseless expenditures. Keep the Empire.

Simple.
And I allow you in a little secret. What started the war in Afghanistan? 9/11. What caused 9/11? Al Qaeda. Why did Al Qaeda want to attack the US? Because Osama bin Laden and an imam ordered a Fatwah to repeal the invaders from their lands, refering to the bases already in muslim countries, like Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. Being able to mobilize is already a big threat to many nations, even if you can't respond in a few weeks/months because of lack of bases. The less the US can be on the offensive, the better. The world doesn't need your backing. Israel, Korea, Germany etc. all those countries where you have bases, these countries have the military to handle their "enemies".

A smaller forces would ofcourse be more logical with less bases around the world. This would actually strenghtend your military in the end, because when the resources are needed they can be spend. Instead of having been spend in the previous years maintaining an unnecessary big army.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
I suspect Zeo facepalmed more than a few times reading that. I know I did.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
That last warning wasn't just aimed at Praetorius, calling someone's rhetoric "sensless" is a good example of not following what I asked. This is a heated topic, you can disagree without adding a derogatory term to your arguments for the other person or their ideas.

The dialogue on these things are horribly broken, the left and right in our country can hardly speek without hissing and gnashing of teeth, that accomplishes nothing.

Similarly, if we are to accuse one another of senselessness, facepalmery or similar dismissive attitudes, we aren't doing any constructive talking.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Do not assume, because you will make an ass out of u and me. Your fleet will soon be bankrupt if you don't

State the assumption and then elucidate how and why "the fleet" will be bankrupt. Keep in mind that the fleet is but a part of the American war machine.


The power vacuum(tm) left behind by retreating forces is really a non argument(But a valid point). Yes there will be a power vacuum, but by whom will it be filled? There isn't going to be a new empire that is going to pick that up. Nobody has the resources. The power vacuum is going to be filled by countries that were occupied by the US. Nothing bad is going to happen, that's all in your head.

Who fills the vacuum is the argument. A nation of comparable strength and wealth does not need to fill the void for it to be a threat to the interests of Europe and America. An alliance between nations will suffice in this regard. The absence of our power in a nation does not necessitate that nation take power. That simply isn't how the world works, because if we are no longer the main player, the nation next in line will surely take advantage and exploit them in much the same way we have. And again, for the betterment of the nation leaning on them. For example, The US has left Iraq. Have the Iraqis filled the vacuum? No. Has their government? No. Insurgents and Iran have.


No we actually don't the US isn't a threat for Europe, nor Russia, nor China. The US needs us more than we do need them. The US is going bankrupt if you haven't noticed. Just like the Roman Empire, your empire is can be financed with new conquests. If you don't cut back your military, than your poor understanding of economics will.

This statement was made without the backing of any sort of supporting evidence. When America sneezes, the world gets a cold. This isn't bragging on my part. What this illustrates is the symbiosis that exists between the US and its allies, and the world in general. We are all highly interconnected, and what affects one of us affects the other. The general economic strength of a nation will, perhaps, allow it to weather the storm better than a weaker nation, but it is affected all the same. You continue to state the US is going bankrupt. While completely incorrect and inaccurate, I am interested in why you believe this to be so, because the why bolsters my arguments. Answer this question so that I may respond with why you're wrong.


We don't need the US for that. You live in a fantasy world that mutual trade does not exists without US threating these nations. We traded 400 years ago already with the most isolationistic nation that ever existed, without the threat of invading it. This country was Shogunate Japan.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan#End_of_seclusion

Seems to me we've been leaning on them, as has Europe, for quite some time. If you also do well to remember how Britain forced China to "open up", as it were. It involved not so much negotiation as it did opium.


You understanding of Paul's foreign policy is still very poor. You would still have allies and the threat of retaliation would be more than enough to keep other nations at bay. The reason you want to intervene is when your economic interest are being threaten. Why do you think the US entered WW1? Germany sunk every commercial ship between UK and US.

Threat of retaliation from whom? Who is it you think would be capable of standing up to a power like Russia or China on the battlefield? Surely you don't mean the States, as we've removed our forces from the world at large, and now spend significantly less on our military, creating a smaller, weaker force with which to defend our shores and not much else. Do you mean Europe's various militaries, which were designed with the idea that the US would be supplementing their forces in the event of a war of any sizable scale? You do not understand what non-interventionism is and how it works. This isn't an insult. This is an observation. Unless we're being directly attacked, we have no need to interfere. And if we were to interfere, what do you think would happen? Do you think we'd ramp up production, fund our military, and bring it back to superior strength, and then let it go all over again? You've yet to learn the lessons of days past.

You are belittling again. Your whole train of thought shows your own undoing. The US needs the world more than the world needs the US. Furthermore the influence of the US is getting smaller and smaller. Even already a couple of years ago, the Dutch actually decided to do less trade with the US because of it's pending economic collapse. Germany(And even France a bit) has much more influence in Europe than the US has.

Once more, you seem not to understand just how interconnected the nations of the world are. We need each other. There is a reason the US is looked at to take the lead whenever an international mission is created. Deny it all you want, but even a weak America is still more of a superpower than Europe can hope to be in the near future. 10 years of the worst mistakes this country could possibly make, and we're still top dog. This should make you question just how powerful we were before our War on Terror, and just how powerful we could become should we prioritize. The Dutch can decide whatever it likes. It doesn't change the fact that the EU and the US are in constant secret trade negotiations to maximize profits at the expense of their respective citizenry. The EU isn't chasing software pirates because it feels like it. It's doing so because its being told to. And that is but the tippy top of the iceberg that is American-European trade relations.


The US military presence throughout the world is not needed. You have illusions of grandeur of the capabilities of the US military and it's importance.(Yes you can bomb every country in the world, but that not going to happen unless you want a rebellion in your own country).

Illusions of grandeur? I am simply stating what already is, not what could be. We don't need to bomb every country in the world to demand submission. The threat of force is more often than not enough. We offer both the carrot and the stick. Most nations choose the carrot. Those who do not suddenly find themselves in possession of WMD, or whatever contrived scenario the Allies come up with.

Your inability to see the economic consequences of your actions will lead you to your own downfall.

You continue on about economic consequences without even understanding what it is that is slowly bleeding us. Were we going broke when Clinton was President? Our current open war is what is behind a significant portion of our fiscal crisis. We can maintain our empire provided we end the war. That particular will not end, however, until we've met our overall goal in the region, which we're fairly close to doing.
Standby for post 2.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
No Rome wasn't responsible for the technogical advances, inventions, societal contributions, that was Greece. And yes there is a big difference in that. But to get to the point. Rome wasn't all that great, it destroyed millions of lives throughout Europe, enslaved thousands, destroying the sovereignty of hunderds of tribes/nations. You only look at the "positives" and think they are the result of the empire. That is a logical fallacy, inventions aren't result of an empire, they are the result of scientists, philosophers and common men. An empire does mostly not contribute to that.

Rome built upon the foundation Greece laid. Science is an accumulation of all knowledge acquired and learned over the course of our history. This isn't debatable, and to ignore Rome's scientific achievement is to wear blinders for no reason other than to reinforce a faulty premise due to hubris. I looked at the positives because you listed its negatives. My point, which you appear to have missed entirely, is while Rome was responsible for terrible things, it was also responsible for absolutely fantastic things that Empires would learn, and emulate over time. And to believe that the Roman Empire didn't create an environment conducive to scientific and technological achievement is preposterous. There is a reason NYC is a great place for one pursuing the arts and why the Congo is perhaps not optimal.

More senseless rethoric. The reason I stated that he knew little about his politics was because of his obvious FAULTS in his posts about this candidate. To than reply, "oh you know little about your own history" is just more dodging on his part. I did not state anything about Dutch history, so there is no way of him knowing what I do know about it and what I don't.

Hyb can defend himself, though I doubt he'll feel the need to. But again, your analysis pertaining to how much I know about Ron Paul was faulty at best, and based primarily on your own lack of understanding as to the greater consequences of what he is proposing.

And furthermore we don't need the US military "help". The only reason you intervene is for your own interest. Yet the US fails to see the blowbacks that goes with it.

Sure you don't. Libya went just great when led primarily by European forces. And there goes your word of the day, again. We understand the consequences of our actions. In fact, much like chess, we sometimes force those reactions to give us a reason to do certain things. There is a reason we went to Iraq right after Afghanistan, and it was not WMD or human rights. It wasn't even oil. But you know that, of course.

I knew when I invoked Russia you would say that. You do know what the budget of the US military or that of Germany? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures 750 billion(Over 10 years) is really not that much, especially when you look at US or EU total.

Do you understand that a non-interventionist approach to our military would significantly decrease the military budget? You continue to use modern day figures to reinforce your argument about a future without a super power America. And are we seriously going to pretend that, despite Russia's meager expenditures on their military, they're still not A-list contenders, who's Airforce is second only to our own? Come now. They're a sleeping giant waiting for a reason to wake up and crush some skulls. That's one of the reasons I like Russia so much, in fact.

And that China and Russia are expanding their influence is actually not a bad thing. They are getting more valuable trading partners than the US and don't declare a war everytime somebody farts the wrong way. Your aggresiveness is repelling people you need.

You state they resist from starting wars without actually thinking about why they're hesitant to do so. What is it keeping China at bay from steamrolling over Taiwan, again? Or their allies in NK from doing anything too stupid to SK? Oh. Europe, right? Or is it magic? Must be. Russia, on the other hand, is selling weaponry to everyone willing to buy. Everyone gives us **** for having nukes, but who was it that lost a ridiculous number of them in the 90s? Who's selling weapons to Assad right now, forcing Saudi Arabia to sell to the revolutionaries to balance the board? Ah yes, Madagascar. Those bastards.


It's not my idea of interventionism, it's the definition of interventionism. The US is doing what you are describing, intervening in things that are non of their business but somehow see a benefit for themselves. Your militarism is hurting your own economy very badly. You should focus on domestic production than wasting on non beneficial militarism.

You don't understand the military at all, so I'm not going to bother explaining why our presence in certain regions is not only necessary, but beneficial economically and militarily. I will say, however, that interventionism has gotten us quite far, and has done the same for Europe, a continent quite familiar with colonialism, interventionism and empire. And we've learned your lessons and put our own little spin on them. The fact that Europe isn't trying to get us to stop, but instead frequently aids us in our endeavors should suggest to you that perhaps your respective governments are not nearly as outraged as they'd have you believe. Just food for thought.

And I allow you in a little secret. What started the war in Afghanistan? 9/11. What caused 9/11? Al Qaeda. Why did Al Qaeda want to attack the US? Because Osama bin Laden and an imam ordered a Fatwah to repeal the invaders from their lands, refering to the bases already in muslim countries, like Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. Being able to mobilize is already a big threat to many nations, even if you can't respond in a few weeks/months because of lack of bases. The less the US can be on the offensive, the better. The world doesn't need your backing. Israel, Korea, Germany etc. all those countries where you have bases, these countries have the military to handle their "enemies".

What was the stated reason for invading Afghanistan? 9/11. What caused 9/11? Terrorists. Who allowed 9/11 to occur? Debatable. Al Qaeda has never truly been a threat. It has been a reason, an excuse, to do certain things that a segment of our country has intended to do for quite some time.

Threatening to mobilize in a month or two is just that: a threat. A threat that states, "You have 2 months to prepare for us. And then we're going to trickle in and hopefully you don't have any aces up our sleeves." The ability to be there in 24 hours means the enemy knows 3 things: 1) We're coming. 2) We're going to kill you. 3) There's nothing you can do to stop us. And it is this warfighting strategy that ensures victory, and keeps others from repeating their mistakes.

Also, and this will be my one "Zeonix-like" remark, the examples you gave are simply adorable. Israel would not exist were it not for the US, who finances them, basically gives them weapons for free, and has promised to back them in absolutely everything and anything they do, including a strike on Iran, even if Israel should strike preemptively. US Marines are standing post right now in SK, as they have since the war, waiting for NK to make the first move. Again, we protect SK, both from NK and China, we supply them with weapons, and in the event of a war, we'd be there fighting alongside them. Symbiotic relationships. It makes the world go round. Germany's own military is almost purely a defensive force, and in the event of a full-scale war, would need to be supplemented by the rest of Europe, who, together, are still not equal to the military might the US wields. Say what you will about our social programs and general backassward behavior (Thats a play on assbackward, btw), but our warfighting machine is unparalleled. And that's why we play an integral role in the defense of Europe through NATO, as was also the case during the Cold War when Russia was on your front doorstep.

A smaller forces would ofcourse be more logical with less bases around the world. This would actually strenghtend your military in the end, because when the resources are needed they can be spend. Instead of having been spend in the previous years maintaining an unnecessary big army.

Please explain how a smaller military that spends less on military innovation, has less units, less people and armaments, little to no ability to fight as an expeditionary force and has to cross an ocean and more to even get to the fight is a better fighting force than what we have now. For comparison's sake, if Germany were to fight us in total war on an agreed upon battlefield, who would win? It wouldn't even be close. Again, not hubris. Simple reality.
E-tool to the neck.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom