Where Have All the ChickenHawks Gone?

UGA12

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 7, 2003
7,774
108
63
Between The Hedges
i'm sorry - I did not explain myself fully on that statement, Trench.

I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy that is so evident from both sides.

When Bush was Pres, u had anti-war demonstrators getting headline coverage on the Iraq war - you do not see that today as the US under Obama is engaged in Afghanistan and perhaps, soon, Libya.

If the problem under Bush was "blood for oil" then it should still be the same problem under Obama....otherwise, they were just protesting Bush.

When Bush was Pres, oil spiked up and Republicans said nothing but Democrats screamed bloody murder....now, today, the situation is somewhat reversed.

Each 'side' uses current events in their own propaganda until it is no longer useful, usually 2 or 4 years, depending on if it is Congressional or Executive....

You are right, but this type of logic doesnt play well with most in this forum.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
That is exactly why the system is broken. It gives the illusion of debate between the two parties while they both continue to fuck you in the ass. Over and over again. Even more sad is when people actually defend their actions.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
i'm sorry - I did not explain myself fully on that statement, Trench.

I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy that is so evident from both sides.

I agree that there's hypocrisy on both sides. Obama should be getting more heat from both the left and the right on our continuing military presence in Afghanistan.

When Bush was Pres, u had anti-war demonstrators getting headline coverage on the Iraq war - you do not see that today as the US under Obama is engaged in Afghanistan and perhaps, soon, Libya.

The only justification for military intevention in Libya would be to prevent genocide. That was not the reason we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. There's no justification to go into Libya for any reasons other than humanitarian and as part a coalition force "if" and when it becomes necessary.

If the problem under Bush was "blood for oil" then it should still be the same problem under Obama....otherwise, they were just protesting Bush.

Everyone knew that Bush, Cheney and many of their close friends were oilmen or had close ties to the oil industry. It was all too cozy. Obama's not yet declared war on any nation. There was "talk" (mostly on the right) of military strikes in Iran over their nuclear policy. Their was "talk" (again on the right) of military strikes in North Korea over their nuclear arms testing, and now there's "talk" of military intervention in Libya, but once again, I suspect it's mostly coming from the right.

When Bush was Pres, oil spiked up and Republicans said nothing but Democrats screamed bloody murder....now, today, the situation is somewhat reversed.

Regrettably, stupidity has proven to be a difficult obstacle for many Americans to overcome.

Each 'side' uses current events in their own propaganda until it is no longer useful, usually 2 or 4 years, depending on if it is Congressional or Executive....

Agreed. It's just that right is much better at it than the left.
I'm enjoying debating someone who's rational for a change. So I appreciate your thoughts. :0008
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Well, when it comes to the Middle East, as far as I am concerned, they only understand one thing and that is force. As I have posted in this thread or another, the area has always been ruled by dictators and despots. We are not going to change that and it is a fool's errand.

If Bush et al were after oil, they should have invaded, taken control of the oil fields, set up bases, etc and pumped the field dry and left.

This 'nation-building' exercise is a waste of human life. At least that way, we would have gotten something out of the money we spent and, important note here - the ME hates the US anyway so it's not like it would have damaged our reputation.

As far as Iran goes - I think the only solution there will be military unfortunately. Iran and China scare the living bahjezuzz out of me.

I would not say that the right is better than the left in this arena - Fox is the only real right outlet along with talk-radio and the left is still in control of the mainstream media sources and Hollywood so both have their avenues.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Well, when it comes to the Middle East, as far as I am concerned, they only understand one thing and that is force. As I have posted in this thread or another, the area has always been ruled by dictators and despots. We are not going to change that and it is a fool's errand.

We should be supporting democracy in the Middle East with our words and with humanitarian aid where and whenever we can. Democracy cannot be spread at the end of a gun barrel.

If Bush et al were after oil, they should have invaded, taken control of the oil fields, set up bases, etc and pumped the field dry and left.

And what on earth could possibly give us the right to do that?

This 'nation-building' exercise is a waste of human life. At least that way, we would have gotten something out of the money we spent and, important note here - the ME hates the US anyway so it's not like it would have damaged our reputation.

Wrong. The Middle East does NOT hate the U.S.

Middle East nationalists hate interventionist U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and until we make radical changes in our foreign policy, that will continue and will only get worse.


As far as Iran goes - I think the only solution there will be military unfortunately. Iran and China scare the living bahjezuzz out of me.

Sorry, but I'll never understand this kind of boogeyman mentality.

I would not say that the right is better than the left in this arena - Fox is the only real right outlet along with talk-radio and the left is still in control of the mainstream media sources and Hollywood so both have their avenues.

I wasn't referring to the media. I was referring to party politics.
............................
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Originally Posted by ssd View Post
Well, when it comes to the Middle East, as far as I am concerned, they only understand one thing and that is force. As I have posted in this thread or another, the area has always been ruled by dictators and despots. We are not going to change that and it is a fool's errand.

We should be supporting democracy in the Middle East with our words and with humanitarian aid where and whenever we can. Democracy cannot be spread at the end of a gun barrel.

Look at how they treat their own people. Force is all they understand. We should not be there in any form.

If Bush et al were after oil, they should have invaded, taken control of the oil fields, set up bases, etc and pumped the field dry and left.

And what on earth could possibly give us the right to do that?

You miss my point. What gave us the right to go to war there? All I'm saying, if the issue was oil, we would have been better off to just take the oil than what we have done

This 'nation-building' exercise is a waste of human life. At least that way, we would have gotten something out of the money we spent and, important note here - the ME hates the US anyway so it's not like it would have damaged our reputation.

Wrong. The Middle East does NOT hate the U.S.

Middle East nationalists hate interventionist U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and until we make radical changes in our foreign policy, that will continue and will only get worse.

Really? Spent anytime in the Middle East? I would say the uprisings in the ME are a result of the people being tired of the regimes that have been set up and supported by the US - they do not see the US as a place of freedom but as a repressor nation. They do not want us there

As far as Iran goes - I think the only solution there will be military unfortunately. Iran and China scare the living bahjezuzz out of me.

Sorry, but I'll never understand this kind of boogeyman mentality.

Islamo-facism and communism do not scare you? The fact that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they will use it? The fact the the US has essentially made China into the next superpower, since 1971 and at any moment, they could dump their US Treasury holdings and economically cripple the US? Does a 20% rate on your mortgage sound fun?

I would not say that the right is better than the left in this arena - Fox is the only real right outlet along with talk-radio and the left is still in control of the mainstream media sources and Hollywood so both have their avenues.

I wasn't referring to the media. I was referring to party politics.

I would disagree here. The Dems are much better at the propaganda and mind control. There is a reason Dems held the House for so long, from 1952 - 1992 before a Republican Majority was installed.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
I would disagree here. The Dems are much better at the propaganda and mind control. There is a reason Dems held the House for so long, from 1952 - 1992 before a Republican Majority was installed.

I don't know how you could say that with a straight face. The GOP is the best at it hands down. I wish it wasn't true. The Dems are a bunch of pussies and let them get away with it left and right.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
I don't know how you could say that with a straight face. The GOP is the best at it hands down. I wish it wasn't true. The Dems are a bunch of pussies and let them get away with it left and right.

The guy is so far right but acts like he is an independent. His questions for the board were so Foxed laced they were painfull to read and then two other guys agree with them like they have no other news sources then nitwit rightwing radio or Fox News. I agree with about 80 percent of what Trent said but the very sad part is these guys not knowing the answers. Are these guys this clueless that they have very limited news sources and just believe everything that is shoveled to them? Nobody with an ounce of brains think we went over to Iraq for just oil. The money made from just the war alone is as criminal as it gets. 60 billion here 100 billion there. Who does this Ssd character think got this money? Heck there was a time ten billion just vanished into thin air and nobody but the crooks knew where it went. They love to say that Fox is the only new organization that gets out the other side. Time and time again that side is littered with manipulating bullshit but they still swear by it. Go figure. If that is the other side of an issue then these guys will stay dumb till the day they take their last ride to the cemetary. Let me go now. Im gonna go hang out under that palm tree in Wisconsin and start up some more trouble. Fukin dopes.
 
Last edited:

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
I'm so far right? Really. Really?

That is laughable.

Just because I do not agree with your point of view on everything means I MUST be a Neocon?

Wow. I thought liberals were an open-minded bunch but not if you disagree with them, I guess.
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
I'm so far right? Really. Really?

That is laughable.

Just because I do not agree with your point of view on everything means I MUST be a Neocon?

Wow. I thought liberals were an open-minded bunch but not if you disagree with them, I guess.

Get used to it if you plan on spending any time around here.
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Thanks for the advice, Cie. I probably won't.
Notice my join date and # of posts. Thought it might be fun to add my opinion to the 'discussion' in here but it isn't so much of a discussion as a one-sided diatribe and anyone who doesn't agree with the overwhelming opinion here is flamed.

I am starting to think of it in the same light as I think of talk-radio. I believe all the talk-radio listeners listen to Rush and Hannity, etc and cycle through them so when you hear that Rush has x million listeners and Hannity has y million listeners, etc - they are all the same millions and they listen in so that they can have their point of view reinforced.

Same thing here.

Que sera sera....i have other ways to spend my time.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Look at how they treat their own people. Force is all they understand. We should not be there in any form.

Not even for humanitarian reasons?

You miss my point. What gave us the right to go to war there? All I'm saying, if the issue was oil, we would have been better off to just take the oil than what we have done

Actually, I think you may have missed my point. What on earth could possibly give us the right to plunder the oil reserves of ANY sovereign nation?

Really? Spent anytime in the Middle East? I would say the uprisings in the ME are a result of the people being tired of the regimes that have been set up and supported by the US - they do not see the US as a place of freedom but as a repressor nation. They do not want us there

Isn't that what I said? They don't hate Americans. They hate the interventionist foreign policy of our government.

Islamo-facism and communism do not scare you? The fact that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they will use it? The fact the the US has essentially made China into the next superpower, since 1971 and at any moment, they could dump their US Treasury holdings and economically cripple the US? Does a 20% rate on your mortgage sound fun>

No, communism and Islam do not scare me. China does not scare me. Iran does not scare me. What "saddens" me is that as a nation, we have so much capacity to do good in the world but our goodwill is overshadowed by our hegemonic and imperialistic foreign policy.

I would disagree here. The Dems are much better at the propaganda and mind control. There is a reason Dems held the House for so long, from 1952 - 1992 before a Republican Majority was installed.

I could use the same logic to assert that's why in 20 of the past 30 years, we've had a Republican in the oval office.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts, SSD.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top