Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: Mr.Al]
    #13395404 -

Mr.Al said:
The Roman Empire is most similar to present day U.S.


No it isn't because we don't have an empire
Quote:
Maybe some people in other nations hate the U.S. because we are still in their backyard after bombing them and killing many of their families.


Maybe.  Please tell me again why the Afghans facilitated al Qaeda when we vastly aided them in ousting their oppressors or why al Qaeda has a beef when we protected the Saudi nation from conquest by Saddam. 
Quote:
Do you think that there are no consequences to foreign policy misadventure?


Of course there are.  Do you think there are no consequences to foreign policy inaction?
Quote:
Politicians who support welfare also support the warfare.  Where is the separation zap?


It is not a perfect overlap by any stretch, Al.  Total fiction on your part.  Some politicians support both  and some support only one.  Some support neither.  As far as I an tell there is no substantial correlation.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13395451 -

History lesson for you zap:


Who funded the muhajadeen and Bin Laden during the Afghan/ Russian conflict.

al Qaeda was created and funded by the C.I.A.



Bin Laden was trained by the C.I.A.

When the U.S. backed out of supporting the Afghans they took it personal.

The U.S. should not have been involved in that conflict.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: Mr.Al]
    #13395502 -

Mr.Al said:
History lesson for you zap:


Who funded the muhajadeen and Bin Laden during the Afghan/ Russian conflict.


The CIA and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and probably quite a few others.  Although bin Laden was nobody at the time, as you well know.
Quote:
al Qaeda was created and funded by the C.I.A.


Idiotic retarded bullshit.  And a lie.
Quote:
Bin Laden was trained by the C.I.A.


I don't know that this is true but lots of people were trained by the CIA.  Not all of them attacked us.

You are undermining your contention that they hate us because we bomb them, Al.  They seem to hate us even if we help them.  How do you reconcile that?
Quote:
When the U.S. backed out of supporting the Afghans they took it personal.


Ungrateful handout seeking wretches.  Also religious lunatics.
Quote:
The U.S. should not have been involved in that conflict.


You don't think we should be involved in anything, Al.  I think we were in an existential battle with the USSR.  They won one in 'Nam, we won one in Afghanistan.  We survived, Soviet Communism collapsed and we reaped a peace dividend for decades including, but not limited to, hundreds of millions of new trading partners in Eastern Europe.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13395538 -

We should not have gotten involved with said religious lunatics.


al qaeda  was the muhajadeen.  The C.I.A. worked with the muhajadeen and developed them to fight the Soviets.

Was it a bad idea for the U.S. to have been involved in the Afghan Soviet conflict?


Do you have a straight answer or are you an intellectual coward?

The middle east is not populated by rational individuals. Getting involved in middle eastern conflicts is not rational behavior.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/27/10 04:20 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: Mr.Al]
    #13395587 -

Mr.Al said:
We should not have gotten involved with said religious lunatics.


The aforementioned collapse of our great existential enemy was heavily due to their defeat in Afghanistan.  Most people know this.
Quote:
al qaeda  was the muhajadeen.  The C.I.A. worked with the muhajadeen and developed them to fight the Soviets.


:rofl2:  al Qaeda was not THE mujaheedin.  Some mujaheeden were also al Qaeda but most were not.  You are fatally fact challenged.
Quote:
Was it a bad idea for the U.S. to have been involved in the Afghan Soviet conflict?


No.  It was an excellent idea and one that paid off with huge benefits.  See collapse of Soviet state.
Quote:
Do you have a straight answer or are you an intellectual coward?


:facepalm:
Quote:
The middle east is not populated by rational individuals. Getting involved in middle eastern conflicts is not rational behavior.


False.  On both accounts.  Many of them are quite rational actors and find useful idiots all over the place.  Some ar Code Pink idiots and some are L. Ronbot isolationist idiots.  Not getting involved is not really an option.  It is a major center for commerce and violence.  Running away from it does not immunize you from the threat of it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13410273 -

We are still in Afghanistan.  This is a place that has proven to be inhospitable to every attempt at long term military occupation.

We are there presently because of our previous involvement during the Afghan Soviet conflict.

This conflict occurred several decades ago, of course the individuals who are al qaeda today were for the most part not directly involved in the old muhajadeen.

It should be obvious that the C.I.A. involvement and financing allowed the Afghan resistance during the Cold War (many of which were the muhajadeen) to become more capable of terrorist actions (which they are).

Fact is, you are an ostrich that refuses to acknowledge that there are serious consequences to involvement in third world nation conflicts, consequences that drag on for decades later.

You point out that the Afghan conflict contributed to the downfall of the U.S.S.R., sure.

You also turn a blind eye to the fact that a U.S. campaign in Afghanistan can turn into just that kind of problem that the former U.S.S.R. was in.

I say that central economic planning played a greater role in the fall of the U.S.S.R.  We have more central planner shenanigans in the U.S. than any other time in the nation's history.  This is what we see with empires; involvement in pointless expensive wars, central social and economic planning.


Most of what you post is inflammatory nonsense with no substance.

You are a troll.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: Mr.Al]
    #13410338 -

Mr.Al said:
We are still in Afghanistan.  This is a place that has proven to be inhospitable to every attempt at long term military occupation.

We are there presently because of our previous involvement during the Afghan Soviet conflict.


Actually, Al, that is a complete fantasy.  If the Taliban had agreed to turn over a wealthy Saudi national mass murderer who attacked us because we protected Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein we never would have gone in at all.
Quote:
This conflict occurred several decades ago, of course the individuals who are al qaeda today were for the most part not directly involved in the old muhajadeen.


No shit.
Quote:
It should be obvious that the C.I.A. involvement and financing allowed the Afghan resistance during the Cold War (many of which were the muhajadeen) to become more capable of terrorist actions (which they are).


I do not recall training them in how to crash planes into Moscow buildings full of people.  And the Afghan resistance existed before Charlie Wilson helped them.  Of course, they weren't very good but they most certainly existed.
Quote:
Fact is, you are an ostrich that refuses to acknowledge that there are serious consequences to involvement in third world nation conflicts, consequences that drag on for decades later.


fact is that you are an ostrich who doesn't understand that there are also consequences to inaction.  In addition you fail to have gleaned that there was any benefit iin assisting the Muj against the Soviet aggressor, our major existential threat at the time and a general threat to most peace loving nations of the world.  No, Al, it is you are the simple one.  You and the jackass L. Ron Paul.
Quote:
You point out that the Afghan conflict contributed to the downfall of the U.S.S.R., sure.

You also turn a blind eye to the fact that a U.S. campaign in Afghanistan can turn into just that kind of problem that the former U.S.S.R. was in.


No, Al, it can't.
Quote:


I say that central economic planning played a greater role in the fall of the U.S.S.R.  We have more central planner shenanigans in the U.S. than any other time in the nation's history.  This is what we see with empires; involvement in pointless expensive wars, central social and economic planning.


We don't have an empire, Al.  In fact, I don't think there is an empire left on the planet, inspite of all the idiots who don't know what the fuck the word means.
Quote:



Most of what you post is inflammatory nonsense with no substance.

You are a troll.


No.  But you are.  I make wide ranging posts on a variety of topics.  You bleat L. Ron Paul nonsense like a mynah bird.  I doubt you have had an original thought in your life.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod] * 1
    #13413823 -




Maybe the middle easterners are pissed and hate America because we are occupying their countries.

Maybe their is a difference between true patriotism and violent nationalistic jingoism.

Maybe you are out of touch with what most Americans think about our militant foreign policy.

Maybe you are out of touch with reality zap.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: Mr.Al]
    #13413854 -

We are in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE, and Iraq.  All at the invitation of their governments, Al.  With the exception of Kuwait and Iraq the numbers are tiny.  That isn't occupation, Al.

You seem to have quite an endless font of nonsense to draw from.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13423693 -

zappaisgod said:
We are in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE, and Iraq.  All at the invitation of their governments, Al.  With the exception of Kuwait and Iraq the numbers are tiny.  That isn't occupation, Al.

You seem to have quite an endless font of nonsense to draw from.



You either have been living under a rock for a few decades or you're a liar:



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564


I. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations



The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.



In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: Mr.Al]
    #13423830 -

Yes, Al, I know.  We have bases in many countries, sometimes many bases.  But I listed the countries in the Mid-East, since it was your contention that we are "occupying" Middle Eastern countries.  I suggest you get a different dictionary.  You clearly don't know what the word means.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13423984 -

We were arguing as to whether the U.S. is an empire...


It would seem to me that the problem the middle easterners have with us is that we are bombing their countries and killing many civilians.

When innocent families are killed it becomes easily for terrorist groups to recruit people. 

The "collateral damage" factor in the middle east is not something that should be ignored when considering long term foreign policy consequences.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: Mr.Al]
    #13424042 -

Mr.Al said:
Maybe the middle easterners are pissed and hate America because we are occupying their countries.




Mr.Al said:
We were arguing as to whether the U.S. is an empire...


It would seem to me that the problem the middle easterners have with us is that we are bombing their countries and killing many civilians.

When innocent families are killed it becomes easily for terrorist groups to recruit people. 

The "collateral damage" factor in the middle east is not something that should be ignored when considering long term foreign policy consequences.


Do you factor the collateral damage of doing nothing?  When innocent families are destroyed by monsters we don't stop?



Al, you made the statement regarding occupation I cited above.  Merely having military personnel in a country is not an occupation, Al.  Nor do we have a fucking empire.  You are beclowning yourself YET AGAIN.

Like I say to anna, "You're the best, never change."  If I didn't have you as my personal pinata I'd have to make a puppet to whack instead of beating the parrot.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13428787 -

zappaisgod said:
Mr.Al said:
Maybe the middle easterners are pissed and hate America because we are occupying their countries.




Mr.Al said:
We were arguing as to whether the U.S. is an empire...


It would seem to me that the problem the middle easterners have with us is that we are bombing their countries and killing many civilians.

When innocent families are killed it becomes easily for terrorist groups to recruit people. 

The "collateral damage" factor in the middle east is not something that should be ignored when considering long term foreign policy consequences.


Do you factor the collateral damage of doing nothing?  When innocent families are destroyed by monsters we don't stop?



I think what Mr. Al means, is that the 'collateral damage factor' he mentioned creates a backlash against us because we created it (occupying and bombing countries).  These things make it easy to recruit these people who feel victimized by the U.S. 

If we were to do nothing, how would we be singled out for a backlash.  Do you imagine people being victimized in their own countries crying out 'DAMN you U.S., where were YOU when I needed you?!'

You are misguided for believing we go into war for moral or social reasons instead of economic or political reasons, and for believing the U.S. does not control an empire.  Bounderies are imaginary and land control is real.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: colemantallent]
    #13429245 -

colemantallent said:
You are misguided for believing we go into war for moral or social reasons instead of economic or political reasons, and for believing the U.S. does not control an empire.  Bounderies are imaginary and land control is real.


We go when all of those reasons coalesce properly.  And no, the US does not control an empire and no, boundaries are not imaginary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13429566 -

Boundaries might be real in the sense that many people agree where it is, and what it means.  However, it is not real.  You may ever see one.  You might see a sign or a painted line marking where this boundary is, but you will not see the boundary.

All of that aside.  The point I was trying to make is that the U.S. may not own the countries it inhabits, but it controls land there.  The U.S. may or may not own the land that it controls, but it controls it.

Having territories all over the world certainly qualifies the U.S. as an empire according the the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which gives the definition of 'empire' as follows:

'A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.'

zappaisgod, you seem to base a lot of your argument against Mr. Al on his misunderstanding the word 'empire.'  Mr. Al, however, is correct in using the word 'empire' in describing the U.S.  If you still disagree with his (and my) assertion, you may try and pick up a few different dictionaries and see what you can drum up.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: colemantallent]
    #13429670 -

Every country controls some land in other countries.  They're called embassies.  Every country the US has a presence in it has at the invitation of that country's government.

There is no American Empire.  Bullshit is bullshit.  A particularly pungent form of bullshit is your assertion that boundaries are imaginary.  Try crossing the border sometime.  There are men with guns there.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13430285 -

In some places.  In others, people just slip through. 

You say people cannot go through because of a border and then assert that there are people with guns there as proof that the border is real.  There is no border there, just people with guns who happen to be in agreement about the location of this 'border.'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13430393 -

zappaisgod said:
There is no American Empire.


:rotfl:...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: this is your govt on tea... [Re: Annapurna1]
    #13469060 -

Annapurna1 said:
zappaisgod said:
There is no American Empire.


:rotfl:...




The problem that you appear to have is your blind faith in democrat leaders to end the pointless violence that the U.S. is engaging in.

How many predator drones are being made to bomb the shit out of the middle east?

If Paul was President the wars would have been ended already.

DO you have anything intelligent to say about that?


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
( 1 2 all )		 MAIA 2,819 28 07/29/06 04:00 AM
by RosettaStoned
* Poll: 50% of NYC Says U.S. Govt Knew
( 1 2 3 all )		 RonoS 3,001 42 09/07/04 09:47 PM
by ekomstop
* closed govt is now a reality... Annapurna1 805 6 05/31/06 01:41 AM
by makaveli8x8
* Supremes to hear "hallucinogenic tea" case
( 1 2 all )		 Smallworlds 2,187 25 04/28/05 02:51 PM
by Smallworlds
* Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest Luddite 1,188 13 08/27/06 05:23 PM
by SquattingMarmot
* Conflict of Interest the Other Way Autonomous 705 2 03/22/05 03:27 PM
by JesusChrist
* Mideast conflict - Sequence of Events/Coverage zorbman 853 5 08/16/06 05:28 PM
by zappaisgod
* i know im always ranting about how evil the US govt is, but...
( 1 2 3 all )		 rDr4g0n 4,051 54 05/01/06 02:56 PM
by Microcosmatrix

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,588 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.042 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.