I don't get it, Brian. You throw out a hypothetical about when to intervene. But it's like saying you want to buy your neighbor's house, he won't sell, so you should kill him and take it. It's in your best interests, after all. Don't lump me in with HK. I've not ruled out the use of military force, I supported taking out Saddam for the same reasons you do (he broke international law, we had treaty obligations as well as moral ones), but the nation building thing was a disaster.
Sluttiness involves sex, while trashiness does not necessarily involve sex. Trashiness involves lack of hygiene while sluttiness does not necessarily involve a lack of hygeine. To me, those two words are not the same thing. I'm sorry if you disagree with me. They have some overlap in individuals but are markedly different in my mind. I think that we can both agree on the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers being different things, and that you claimed that language was in the US Constitution was not. Ed O.
I have already exposed you as a fraud. The Middle East and North Africa doesn't like our military, but you kept making claims about how regular people love us. What a joke. I've caught you in a series of contradictions. And I caught your friend making equally bad grammatical mistakes, so stop preaching to me dude. You're not that fresh. Except.... You fucked up. You keep saying Switzerland is "neutral", when they're clearly not. And you keep defining isolationist the way I define non-interventionist. Explain how the Swiss are "neutral" when they are intervening? Just admit you're an amateur and move along. Based on fucking what? I hear Non-interventionist said all the time by the Libertarian wing. Also you're complaining about the use of one synonym over another, which is strange. I think you're a weird dude. And Gary Johnson is considered a non-interventionist, so thanks for making my point buddy. He wants to massively cut the size of our military like Switzerland did. Not only do you have reading comprehension problems, you have a poor memory as well. Switzerland is a non-interventionist country, and I could give two shits if they sent a handful of troops to Kosovo or not.
Guess you fucked up on that Denny. Iraq is a disaster. Also I am ok with military force, just not preemptive public-sector military force.
Well sorry you're wrong, I've looked up the definition of those words and trashy does mean slutty, skanky, x-rated, etc. Hmm I clearly made a typo, I do not claim otherwise. Don't take my criticisms that seriously, it is just trash talk.
So...two personal attacks, a blatant falsehood, and another "fuck your facts, bruh." Have a nice day. I'm done educating you.
Synonyms are not definitions. Two single words are most often not exactly the same. The nuances to ME between "slutty" and "trashy" are as I outlined above. Do you mean "slut talk"? Ed O.
Lol I know, this was such a silly disagreement. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trashy I think we're both right to a degree Ed O. Although I still think slutty is the best synonym. I edited my previous post, hope I didn't sound that harsh. That was a fun discussion though.
One of the "rules" we've set up (right or wrong) is that we don't do that. Now, if Congress was to change that, then we can discuss it further, but that's how it is right now. So, if Denny (or Gary or Ron Paul) was President when Saddam invaded Kuwait, since Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Syria and Iran and Lebanon couldn't (or wouldn't) come up with the troops needed to re-take Kuwait, we should've sent <1000 troops and put them under Saudi command? And if that wasn't enough, screw it--we're "non-interventionist"? Well, that's debatable, of course. But it wasn't contributing troops...based on what you wrote above, we were just "engaged in trade" and not "intervening in other countries' problems." And re-tooling industry for military purposes (jeeps instead of buicks, etc) that we could sell lease for billions to the Brits and Russians was putting a lot of people to work, as well. The demand for materiel was nowhere near enough to right the economy, but putting 5M men to work in the military opened 5M jobs. To make that deal even sweeter, the troops didn't have any place to spend much of their pay. And the War Bonds effectively took a lot of currency out of circulation, which curbed demand for cars, do the automakers could build more planes and tanks and jeeps. Sure, the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 count as wars, I guess. It was more an outcropping of the Young TUrks coming to power, but OK. From 1871 to 1912, the only wars that happened in all of Europe were the Russo-Turkish war (kind of Europe) in 1877, the Serbo-bulgarian war in 1885 and the "30 Days" Greco-Turk war in 1897. That's it. Compare that to any other 40-year stretch in Europe since the Black Plague, basically. That's all I was trying to say
They are overall non-interventionist, and everyone in the world knows that. It doesn't matter if they sent troops to Kosovo, everyone knows what I meant. You come off as strange for hating a synonym of the word "neutral".
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." dwight eisenhower/nostradamus as he was leaving office, 1960
First of all, Saddam invaded Kuwait after we gave him our blessing. We intervened, before and after. And if Denny were president, he'd say, "Saddam is his neighbors' problem, let them put up the troops. If we have a treaty obligation, we'll provide troops and support, but not 90% of the entire effort (like we did)." Second, Lend-Lease wasn't fair trade, it was supplying one side with arms for free. Third, http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiipaccauses_2.htm US support increased in mid-1941, with the clandestine formation of the 1st American Volunteer Group, better known as the "Flying Tigers." Equipped with US aircraft and American pilots the 1st AVG, under Colonel Claire Chennault, effectively defended the skies over China and Southeast Asia from late-1941 to mid-1942, downing 300 Japanese aircraft with a loss of only 12 of their own. In addition to military support, the US, Britain, and the Netherlands East Indies initiated oil and steel embargos against Japan in August 1941. (That's troops and the bolded bit is an act of War via trade embargo) The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawaling from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere. In an attempt to resolve the situation, Konoe asked US President Franklin Roosevelt for a summit meeting to discuss the issues. Roosevelt replied that Japan needed to leave China before such a meeting could be held. (That's intervention through trade) &c
Technically speaking, they are not "Swiss" troops while serving in their capacity as NATO Peacekeepers.
He is not, although it's quite possible they may have met in ND in the 20's. Tip of the cap to Senator Gerald Nye, btw. He was a Real American. He did more for America than all but a handful of others ever have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism There is a distinction between isolationism, non-interventionism, and protectionism. I hope I was clear that I favor non-intervention, but do not favor protectionism.
Since Brian indirectly brought up my grandfather, who was born at the turn of the century in what later became Yugoslavia, I was going to point that out to him. My grandfather experienced his first year of actual peacetime at the age of 18, as an immigrant in America.
This is pretty much /thread Now that was very revealing stuff. God I hate our mindless interventionism, no wonder the Japanese were pissed. What a useful link. Every mindless neocon should have to read this before they cry about Libertarians. Hannity and O'Reilly are the worst, I swear to god their shows are unwatchable.
Read about the Panay sometime. Or the Rape of Nanking. Or the start of the Russo-Japanese War. "No wonder the Japanese were pissed", indeed. :smh: If you trust NPR... Serious question HK...are you studying some type of history, sociology, ?? Part of the time it seems you do, and then you go and have posts like the last one.
Hmm you are a very lazy guy. Denny made a pretty long post so put in the work son. To me it looks like Denny just showed how your sanctions failed, and we struck first of course. China killed a lot more people.
