Pipelines!
LOXO7's forum posts
[QUOTE="kraychik"]Nobody wants an unnecessary war. Most importantly, though, Americans are sick of fighting wars that are then destroyed by leftist politics that ruin the military's ability to secure military objectives. Either fight a war to win it and destroy the enemy or don't fight it at all. Don't send the military in with its hands tight behind its back and give the enemy the advantage. I......actually agree. I never really understood why the U.S. is always trying to "save" as much lives as possible. It's fvcking war. We go into war to destroy the enemy, not to let them become our friends. With that said, both Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that we should have never started. Or at least, they could have been handled way better than they were. Was it a war with Iraq and Afghanistan or was it a war on terror and terror happened to engulf those countries and countries beyond?[QUOTE="sonicare"]
I believe you are right. No one in this country wants any more wars. At least not any reasonable person.
l4dak47
Oh man. William McKinley was assassinated by progressives that were afraid that he was going to win his reelection after winning the Spanish-American War, so they killed him. They did it so he wouldn't stall their plans of putting a progressive (Theodore Roosevelt) in office. Roosevelt liberated Panama from Columbia, in order for the US to control the canal. Wilson enacted the Federal Reserve Bank. Hey guess which presidents won the Nobel Peace Prize? Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama, all progressives. No propaganda there. You want things to move forward? Put a progressive in office.[QUOTE="LOXO7"]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]George Lakoff is one of the best Cognitive Scientists out there. He has been trying to explain how the right manages so much support in the US even when their ideas are completely absurd. I think he does a good job based on the latest evidence in cognitive sciences. George Lakoff: How Right-Wingers Scam People Into Buying Their Toxic Philosophy Here is what progressives can learn from right-wing messaging. http://www.alternet.org/books/156057/george_lakoff%3A_how_right-wingers_scam_people_into_buying_their_toxic_philosophy_/WhiteKnight77
Barack Obama whould never have been given a Nobel, especially for just being elected President. If that is the case, then 16 other Presidents should have received it. They didn't.
What does that tell us about the people who give out the award? They have an agenda. It looks so.[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Same thing. My point is you should prefer candid talk, or at the very least not kid yourself that a certain demeanour implies objectivity (which doesn't exist). kuraimenI disagree. People can be objective. People can put their own personal opinions aside in the name of research if they are open-minded. People like Uygur and Lakoff take information and mold it to fit their own view of the world. There are other people who can be objective and present only their findings from all different perspectives without trying to make any political point. If you are doing something with the purpose of being completely objective, you can do so. It isn't impossible. Wrong again! Lakoff uses data and science for his theories. If you want to prove his science is not sound and biased go ahead but science doesn't work that way you have to actually put some effort in disproving his assertions and considering he's been doing research since the 1970's take your time... I don't know what he means about this, "They get out there and use their language and frames and repeat them over and over. The more they repeat it the greater their effect on peoples brains. Democrats dont do that and as a result the conservatives have framed almost every issue."
Fired up! Ready to go! This must have been a neoconservative rally then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHfbKTiUH8U
The brutal tyrant that America backed in the 80's during the Iran-Iraq War. It's not about the people. It's about what you said. The political part, only the countries best interest.I remember in high school they had marine and army recruiters on site, they got many kids to sign up when they turned 18. They get them in other ways like they offer pizza parties and give out free stuff like shirts, games ect...to kids throughout their high school years and when they turn 18 they get them to sign up.
I volunteer at an animal shelter, I can't be drafted anymore because of that. So no worries there, but I think the military will always have people willing to sign up, if not they would pull out the draft.
I'm not anti-military or anything like that, it's good for some people and our troops are brave men and women. But I don't think we should be going around starting all these wars, only good thing to come out of Iraq was killing Saddam who was a brutal tyrant, but we made a bigger mess of things then we should have.
We should have just left it alone, we don't go to wars to help people, we only get involved if it's in our own best interest to do so.
ShadowMoses900
-2. Learn some history. We weren't winning Vietnam. At least WW2 had an enemy. The media doesn't cover wars. They cover riots in countries the US isn't in. "Lets talk about how America can save these countries." Oh, and they're the only countries with some natural resource to take.[QUOTE="LOXO7"]
[QUOTE="wis3boi"]
+1
It's too bad war can't be treated like it was before TV. Leave the media coverage out of it, might help things I think. Conflict will always be happening, yet this constant media coverage I think ruins it. It probably doesn't help the soldiers fighting over there when everyone at home is crying over it and saying it's a stupid war now that they have a front row seat. One person gets killed and it's like riots start....if only some people realized the thousands who died in a day's time in WW2, for example. But people back then didn't know that right away because the media wasn't filming the battles and putting it on tv every night. Happy people at home can bring better hope and morale to soldiers on the front. Maybe it would work, maybe not, I'm just taking a guess.
leviathan91
We had an enemy in Vietnam. They were the North Vietnamese Army. :| Let me rephrase what I stated earlier: We could have won Vietnam if there wasn't so much political micromanaging of the war. Also, the difference between the media coverage of WWII and Vietnam was that all the News Stations agreed to air certain news about World War II. It was basically self-censorship. As for Vietnam, the media coverage was biased. You even had Walter Cronkite announcing that Vietnam wasn't winnable but also, with scenes of the destruction of Asia and our men in body bags did influence a lot of people to evade the draft and protest. The media coverage wasn't favorable and even certain celebrities went to great lengths to actually portray the NVA as good people. Remember Hanoi Jane?
While the media did talk about how America could save Iraq, it also went on to exaggerate the war as a qaugmire. Also, it is incredibly stupid to think that we went to war against these countries simply for their resources. Again, if we wanted oil from Iraq, we would have done what the French, the Chinese, and the Russians have always been doing - Taking advantage of the Oil-for-Food program. And what did Vietnam have? Absolutely nothing and we still went to war to contain communism.
I hear it started when the US backed the French fighting Vietnam in the 50's.A special study mission headed by Representative Walter Judd, a recognized Republican spokesman on Asia, surveyed the Far East and reported on its view of the high stakes involved: The area of Indochina is immensely wealthy in rice, rubber, coal, and iron ore. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent6.htm
America set up a dictator Ngo Dinh Diem to control the situation where France failed. Deim failed because of religious differences of the people. Diem was executed 20 days before Kennedy. Then Johnson went to war with Vietnam.
The United States moved quickly to prevent the unification and to establish South Vietnam as an American sphere. It set up in Saigon as head of the government a former Vietnamese official named Ngo Dinh Diem, who had recently been living in New Jersey, and encouraged him not to hold the scheduled elections for unification.http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnimvivi18.html
You talk about the scripted mainstream media and Hanoi Jane. I talk about citing the Pentagon Papers. Moral? The mainstream media is there to distract us.
I thought polonium has a short half lifeosiris667I hear the less the half life the more radiation it has.
[QUOTE="leviathan91"]
If Bush wanted oil, he could have just bribed his way through Saddam Hussein just like the French, the Chinese, and the Russians. We can argue whether the Iraq War was a mistake or not but the biggest mistake we could have made was retreat and let the other side win. Although their democracy isn't perfect like ours, at least they're not controlled by a madman and hopefully they'll become a great nation. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was the United States, just to let you know.
Now if we were to go into the details on how the Iraq War was handled then yes, our leaders (and congress, Democrat and Republican) deserve most of the blame. The way they handled the war was laughable. Everyone likes to compare Iraq to Vietnam but what they don't understand is that Vietnam was lost not because we were losing. In fact, we were winning. The problem was how our political leaders handled the war through micromanagement but also the media coverage that painted a grim picture of Vietnam and the same with Iraq even though our casualties are far less than that of Vietnam and even D-Day.
There's no doubt that war is a terrible thing but sometimes necessary to defend our way of life, no matter how imperfect it may be. The problem is the cheapening of the concept of war and the politicization of war.
As for the draft, 99% it will never happen. The all-volunteer force is much more reliable and more efficient. Also, all services have reached their highest level in recruiting. The only way there will be a draft is if we go in an all-out nuclear war with a country like Russia or China which will never happen.
And finally, this isn't the last we'll see of war because there is always going to be a conflict. It's a fact of life.
wis3boi
+1
It's too bad war can't be treated like it was before TV. Leave the media coverage out of it, might help things I think. Conflict will always be happening, yet this constant media coverage I think ruins it. It probably doesn't help the soldiers fighting over there when everyone at home is crying over it and saying it's a stupid war now that they have a front row seat. One person gets killed and it's like riots start....if only some people realized the thousands who died in a day's time in WW2, for example. But people back then didn't know that right away because the media wasn't filming the battles and putting it on tv every night. Happy people at home can bring better hope and morale to soldiers on the front. Maybe it would work, maybe not, I'm just taking a guess.
-2. Learn some history. We weren't winning Vietnam. At least WW2 had an enemy. The media doesn't cover wars. They cover riots in countries the US isn't in. "Lets talk about how America can save these countries." Oh, and they're the only countries with some natural resource to take.
Log in to comment