Is the US a shitty place to live?

'Murican, born 'n' raised here......... I even served in the U.S. Army. *snaps to attention*

Speaking from over 50 years of experience I'd say all Americans live by the Golden Rule. Those who have all the gold make all the rules.

I've also heard life in America compared to a shit sandwich......... The more bread you've got, the less shit you eat! :wiggle:
 
DarkCorp said:
Hey, sounds like conspiracy and Iranian propaganda to me. Yes, once again, the great satan has made ISIS along with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc, etc. Everytime we intervene in the world, regardless for us or our allies, we are destined to screw up. We should really stick our heads in the sand.
Click to expand...
Minding your own business is NOT the same as "sticking our heads in the sand." It's minding your own business.

For example, I'm keenly aware of the ignorant shit a hypothetical person just said, and I'm dissecting it in my brain into all the little absurdities that comprise that hateful thought, and I'm arriving at the conclusion that this pissant is a worthless piece of human filth (by my measure). But I'm not going to intervene and tell them off because the need a harsh lesson in who can beat who up, cause I'd have nothing to gain from that encounter... Let them live their ignorant, piece of shit life, I have no illusions that their influence will amount to nothing. I'm not cowering from them in this hypothetical situation, I'm not hiding myself from the truth, I'm not shielding myself from reality. I'm making myself very aware of what's going on around me, but I'm NOT pushing my prerogatives onto those around me. That's the major difference.

The U.S. minding its own business does NOT mean being ignorant of Iran's nuclear goals, nor does it necessitate NOT knowing what's happening with Germany, or Greece, or Russia, or Japan. It just means, to use a historical example, NOT sending in CIA agents to start spreading rumors of ethnic-based secession to various cities within a sovereign nation to directly plant the seeds of civil war... simply because it would be convenient if we could build a military base there and have direct access to real estate right on top of one of the world's richest ore deposits.

Also I never said that intervention MUST result in creating our own enemies. I said that history has served as an example that it KEEPS happening, time and time again. Clearly the South Koreans are not our mortal enemies. Clearly Panama isn't some kind of deranged threat against us. Clearly Germany is powerful ally/puppet to the U.S. interests in Europe. Obviously, foreign intervention has worked for the U.S. But it's also failed catastrophically, and it would be a huge lapse in judgement to ignore that some of the worst threats of the past 20 years have been of U.S. creation.

DarkCorp said:
PS: Sorry for the personal attack (trashing on the U.S.), your comment about how I was close to joining the masses of U.S. sheeple rubbed me the wrong way. Also, IMO, the way you defended Putin and the CPC. Its your opinion, friendly debate. Anyways, yeah, we do agree on the internal problems that effects our nation even though we dis-agree on foreign policy.
Click to expand...
I defended them based on facts, and I left matters of opinion alone. See my "if Russia is not your country, you have no say in the matter" comment. I'm not Russian, therefore what Putin wants to do with Russia is not my business. That's all there is to that. Opinion doesn't enter the equation. But he DID do things, and I commented on those things. All I care about are the facts. I don't love Iran, but it is a fact that the "Israel should be wiped off the map" comment was NEVER actually said by Ahmadinejad (God damned names you need to GOOGLE to spell them correctly... ~_~). Therefore, every time that line is paraded around, it is a FACT that it's the propagation of lies. Why doesn't concern me. It could be a concerted effort (a "conspiracy"), or it could be simple ignorance. I'd find the latter more likely, but at the end of the day, I don't care why. All I care about are the certainties and definitives. The known and the absolute.

I didn't say you close to joining "sheeple", I said that you were doing things that they do. We all do, but the difference that defines us is our agency and what we do with our instinctive reactions and habits, and whether we take a moment to say to ourselves, "Naw, I'm not gonna do that." I can't tell you how many times I've DESPERATELY wanted to fire off a comment at some of the mind-numbingly hateful and stupid and arrogant shit that *AHEM* "some people" on these boards have said. But I don't, cause I know it won't lead to much good. Yeah, if anyone thinks I'm prone to flying off the handle (which I'd attribute to the recipient's mental image of me, rather than my actual intended tone), then just IMAGINE all the shit I prevent myself from saying! You can have the instinctual response, and I probably have it too. But what you do with it is what matters, and that's what I was commenting on.

But if "all" we're disagreeing on is U.S. foreign policy, I'd say that's a HUGE area to disagree on! To me, foreign policy is EXACTLY what's wrong with America! It's my main sticking point. It's the one thing I would hope people would agree on...
 
Putins' speech, at one part, mentions that many russians found themselves living in a foreign country.

This was because many undesirable people were displaced/eliminated while soviet citizens were moved in lebensraum style.

He mentions that the exit of the ex-satellite states from the USSR essentially started a domino effect. This was very bad.

Of course, thats the very definition of an empire such as the USSR dissolving. The other alternative is the USSR NOT dissolving.

The folks who make the relevant decisions in Iran have called for the destruction/elimination of Israel. Ruhollah Khomeini is considered legally free from criticism, all his words truth. Its good enough for me.

So minding my own business means having no right to express thought because another individual believes differently from me? Because another individual thinks my thoughts are worthless, so why bother? Surely I hope not.

This thread is a discussion of ideas. There have been MANY cheapshots and plenty of haughtiness from all sides. Its the nature of the beast. If a person extolls the idea that socialism/universal healthcare/whatever, will solve the worlds or a nations problems, they will get opposing views. NMA is not known as a carebear community.

To use another posters blanket phrase, 'throwing out the baby with the dishwater', part of being at the top is a lot of folks won't like it. China wants to boss asia around, Putin wants Russia to be a big bad world power that can balance out the evil U.S. Just because not EVERY single intervention was perfect, does not mean we say fuck the world, sand here I come. Even Crni stated he wants the U.S. to mind its own business. But thats foolish, as I said before, WE will be replaced with someone else. History has proven that as well.
 
Last edited:
Afghanistan, we did EXACTLY what the Mujahideen (NOT AL QAEDA) freedom fighters wanted us to do, assist with the expulsion of the soviets. We didn't fuck with making a post soviet government, NOT, our business.

Vietnam, all those S. Vietnamese who were killed outright or enslaved in re-education camps would have certainly preferred a split Vietnam. But yea, the fucking hippies and inept politicians fucked it up. Meh, categorise as half-half.

S. Korea

Israel

The Saudis

UAE

Bahrain

Taiwan

Japan

NATO

Australia

Micronesia

Just some examples.

Just to be clear, intervention does not always mean militarily, sometimes its enough to know that the U.S. will assist if a foreign power tries to invade you.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Afghanistan, we did EXACTLY what the Mujahideen (NOT AL QAEDA) freedom fighters wanted us to do, assist with the expulsion of the soviets. We didn't fuck with making a post soviet government, NOT, our business.
Click to expand...

Yeah because that was smart and had no drawbacks whatsoever.
 
We kicked the soviets in the balls and assisted folks who wanted our help.

Think we did a good thing actually.

The soviets bled us in Vietnam, we returned the favor in Afghanistan.

When you give weapons to people, you generally do not try to take them back. It is just bad form. What the mujahideen did with the weapons post soviet exit is out of our hands. Well, we could have sent in the military and demanded an accounting of every single weapon given. We could have bombed the shit out of those who didn't come up with perfect numbers. We might as well told them how to run their post soviet government too.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
Just some food for thought

A lot of people don't realize that the Pashtun people who inhabit Modern southern Afghanistan and the FATA region of Pakistan have been a force since before the partition of Pakistan/India. Pakistan also uses the Pashtun fighters as a force to cause destabilization in Afghanistan and India ( Kashmir). The ISI has a long relationship with them. Saudi foreign policy has been to fund build Madrasas(education) in other Muslim countries. So when they began to builds these schools/madrasas in the FATA region of northern Pakistan (early 80's), this had the effect of radicalizing the peoples. For example the Swat valley used to be a modern ski resort area in the 60's and 70's. So into this situation you have the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The US still smarting from Vietnam; were looking for a way to fight a proxy war against Soviets and our Allies Saudi and Pakistan had the means and the US supplied the funds and arms (stinger missiles, etc) we funded different groups too such as the Non-Pashtun peoples of northern Afghanistan who would become the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in the 90/00's.
 
Honestly I think the US should've just allowed the Soviets to have it. Not because Soviet territorial gains are a positive development, but because there's no way they would have ever been able to hold onto it even if they'd won.
 
DarkCorp said:
...

Just to be clear, intervention does not always mean militarily, sometimes its enough to know that the U.S. will assist if a foreign power tries to invade you.
Click to expand...

To be clear though, military and covert operations is what I am talking about. And I count the support with weapons as covert intervention as well since they can drastically change the game - as how it was shown with Afghanistan in the 1980s.

I don't want to attack you, but half of those nations you mention leave me a bit confused. Australia? NATO? Japan? In which way has the US intervened here? I will say this again to make it more clear I am talking about direct interventions. In that sense South Korea was less of an intervention but an outcome of the second world war where in contrast political changes in Argenitina and Iran have been supported by the CIA and a clear intervention by outside forces.
 
I think I see what you mean now Crni.

A great many nations want America to piss off, in the sense that we should mind our own business. If Taiwan gets attacked by the PRC, by PRC reasoning, we should do nothing because its none of our concern. This is the definition of intervention as otherwise, not intervening is doing exactly what the PRC wants.

I mean do you want me to say that U.S. action in S. America could have been different? I would agree. The soviets never really had much interest in latin america and really only screwed around down there just to fuck with the U.S.

I have never agreed that the U.S. military should be a corporate tool to assist in making a fast buck so to speak. I have been very clear about this.

But Iran for example is a different kind of situation,

On the one hand, we should have left Mossadegh alone. On the other hand, that would have pissed off a major ally, the UK in particular, who were losing their control of Iranian oil. Either way, we were going to piss off and fuck over somebody. If we go isolationist and make no choice, then what message does that send to those who are deciding to pick a side? What message are we sending to those who have ALREADY chosen a side, the U.S?

See, my issue is that a lot of times, certain folks want to go the black and white route even though something like geopolitical strategy is pretty much grey. There are often times situations where the only choices you have are bad and worse. Of course we'd like to say nothing in those situations but thats not an option.
 
Last edited:
Since I see that it is mentioned in this thread - what is it exactly that the US have against Iran having nuclear weapons (although that's not what they're trying to get)? Or anyone, for that matter? Fear of nuclear weapons is the reason the whole second half of the 20th century wasn't one big, bloody war between east and west, so who's to say that Iran having nukes (like Israel does) isn't going to keep the middle east region more peaceful?
 
Japan relies on the U.S. for national defense. If they get attacked by a much bigger foreign power, America is duty bound to INTERVENE.

America has a HUGE role in NATO. If we went and stuck our heads in the sand, well suffice to say we have given up on intervention and left the other NATO members high and dry.

So just because some nations have nukes then everyone should have them?

Sure we have MAD, I don't dispute that.

Thing is, having a nuke means those nukes need to be secured. The regime that has them has to be stable. Then there is the arms race that needs to be discussed. Iran having a nuke would give them a lot more bargaining power and that is something neither the U.S. nor our Sunni/Israeli allies want.
 
Last edited:
I think that is a very complex question. One where many reasons play a role. For example, the western world has kinda a monopoly on nuclear technology be it with civilian or military applications. Nations like North Korea, India and Pakistan and eventually Iran could undermine that monoply - Read something about the father of the Islamic Bomb, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan he build a pretty nice business around him self selling his knowledge about nuclear technology to the highest bidder untill Pakistan was forced to stop him because of US preasure. A factor that should not be ignored. So there is definetly a political and economical side to it. The nuclear industry is an industry. And you can make money with it. Like with selling the technology and material.

Security concerns are another very serious issue. Even if I understand the reason why a nation like Iran or N-Korea would eventually want to be nuclear powers. Even if I don't see them really using nuclear weapons, but they make sure that attackers will think twice about a war. Though if more nations own nuclear technology it becomes more likely that they will fall in the wrong hands. And I am not even talking about atom bombs. Dirty bombs can be a huge danger as well. Conventional explosives that spread radiation. Imagine something like that in one of the bigger US or European cities. People would start a mass panic. Another issue is that just like Dark said, more nuclear bombs means more reason for other nations to own them. Brazils military has always been very interested in it. And if Brazil would own some you can be sure that the other South American nations will not feel all to well about it. And it is the same situatin with the Iran. Another arms race might become a reality. And the more nuclear weapons are around the higher the chance that they might be used, even if only in small numbers. Think about a situation like a war between India and Pakistan where they start to use a few nukes. Nuclear weapons are like the genie in a bottle. Once it's out, it can become very difficult to get it back in.


Cimmerian Nights said:
Crni Vuk said:
Japan? In which way has the US intervened here?
Click to expand...
Duh, GHQ?
Click to expand...

Outcome of the second world war. The US won. So they occupied Japan. Less an intervention in my opinion but rather an effect. Japan declared war on the US and attacked them afterall. Just like Germany did. I am really talking about military interventions and covert operations. Think about Panama 1989 Operation Just Cause, Cuba Pig Bay, Coup de tat in Iran and Argentina here. And before someone gets the idea, yes yes yes Brits, France, Germany, Soviets etc. are the same kind of pigs. We all did evil things yada yada.
 
LordAshur said:
Since I see that it is mentioned in this thread - what is it exactly that the US have against Iran having nuclear weapons (although that's not what they're trying to get)? Or anyone, for that matter? Fear of nuclear weapons is the reason the whole second half of the 20th century wasn't one big, bloody war between east and west, so who's to say that Iran having nukes (like Israel does) isn't going to keep the middle east region more peaceful?
Click to expand...



What is hard to understand? When a nation wants nukes but also says they want to nuke the fuck out of their neighbors, then there is a problem.
 
Hey, I absolutely agree with you, Toront :razz:



Though I can't see the US giving up their arsenal any time soon :/
well they are not idiots afterall!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top