Political Spergatory or How I Learned To Love /pol

Our reasons for being there were giving them freedom (with bombs), fighting terrorism (with bombs), and taking oil/resources we wanted (you guessed it). As much as I don't like us being in the ME I would agree with DarkCorp that the speed and level we're pulling out of the ME while in it's current state could end badly. Maybe not in all places though. Although we have been the direct cause of much of the insanity there in the last few decades.

This is just a possibility though. Maybe pulling out will be good? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 
IMO, it is not so much time but using our time there efficiently. I don't think our brass really had a coherent strategy when we started (Bush), and Obama did the 1 step forward 3 steps back dance.

If we didn't get ours, someone else would have taken it instead. Like Ron Pearlman says, some things never change.
 
Last edited:
TheGM said:
20 years later and not a single drop. Imagine thinking that was the con the entire time.
Click to expand...
It was one of our main stated motivation/reason for going. Also, keeping it under our control, or at least in chaos so that other countries can't move in on it. ie Russia.

If we can't control the region, plunge it into chaos. Also, defense contractors made a pretty penny on it and lobbied the hell out of the gov to stay.
 
I never thought about keeping the region in chaos in that way, kinda disappointed in myself

It works actually. Russia is tied up in Libya and Syria, not to mention Ukraine. NATO makes sure Russian break out attempts in eastern europe are hampered.

China is making a good go of it but they have Taiwanese and local resource tunnel vision.

But as Morgan has brought up, there IS a reason why military funding is SOOOO important. We spend a lot on defense but it is to make sure the other fuckos don't get a leg up on us.
 
We should just Marshall plan the ME as we did with EU. Make them our military/econ allies. Would be a bit of a shitstorm at first with all fundamentalism and division floating around, but I think they'd warm up eventually. The desire for first world conditions and a more prominent seat at the negotiating table would prevail over daughter stoning turbans, or at least I'm thinking it would.

Military spending also makes it's way into consumer/citizen life so depending on how the funding is utilized it's def not a bad thing. The corruption and lobbying is the issue for me. Or when billions just go poof! Not so much the spending itself really.
Not the size that matters so much, but how you use it heh
 
That is why I brought up the Commanche project. That is why I have gone in depth, about how we are decades ahead of our rivals in stealth tech among others.

When you are the one pioneering anything, the cost are substantially higher. But those costs justify themselves as you can see. Without spending the money, we wouldn't have been first among many things, GPS for example. We wouldn't have the global reach if we weren't paying for all those bases. NATO would not be as attractive if we weren't paying for most of it.

Our euro hippy brothers join NATO because it offers plenty of defense without incurring the cost of maintaining an equivalent force individually. It allows the europeans to stay on their high horse so to speak.

In return, we often get to act unilaterally as europeans have no stomach for being world policeman. It is a win win.

In regards to the Marshall plan, not even the U.S. could afford it. Everything has limits, as things often do in life. Not only that, as the row between Greece and Turkey has proven, allies are not without problems. Now imagine if we had to mediate a huge family fight over issues of money, sectarianism AND tribalism. Also, we did try it with making both Iran and the Saudis our allies. Too bad Carter the peanut hippy fucked that up by not exerting more influence on the Shah. Too bad the Iranian communists who were riling shit up against the Shah couldn't see the only ones to benefit from their agitation were the religious extremists. The Tudeh party proceeded to pay the price for their folly.
 
Last edited:
Morgan_ said:
It was one of our main stated motivation/reason for going.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif

That wasn't the con. it was bigger than that.
 
Just had a thought.

The libs said that George Zimmerman should not have gone after Treyvon Martin. They said he was guilty of murder.

Yet when the liberals doing the chasing, all of a sudden, Kyle couldn't be the one defending himself.
 
DarkCorp said:
Just had a thought.

The libs said that George Zimmerman should not have gone after Treyvon Martin. They said he was guilty of murder.

Yet when the liberals doing the chasing, all of a sudden, Kyle couldn't be the one defending himself.
Click to expand...
Oh damn.
 
DarkCorp said:
Yet when the liberals doing the chasing, all of a sudden, Kyle couldn't be the one defending himself.
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna go fishing for the tweet but it looked like this.

"That Kyle kid didn't need to shoot anybody, he should have just let the crowd beat him up because they might not have killed him"
 
Honestly, why go out and defend a strangers property with possibly your life when you can stay at home and jerk off?
That boy don't make no damn sense.
 
I really hope Kyles defense team brings up the George Zimmerman case.

Even if we assumed Kyle started it all (we cannot know for sure who fired those initial shots while Kyle was being chased by Rosenbaum), one should not chase a retreating suspect. Most self defense cases frown upon a defender who shoots an aggressor in the back as that signifies the aggressor was retreating. It certainly doesn't help he was being taunted with 'Shoot me nigga'.
 
Morgan_ said:
Honestly, why go out and defend a strangers property with possibly your life when you can stay at home and jerk off?
That boy don't make no damn sense.
Click to expand...


Why protest a shooting of a black man who was non compliant? His death didn't affect every BLM member or Antifa. It could be argued that if people simply didn't care, all the bad stuff would not have happened. People would not have been raped, extorted or got murdered in the CHOP. Socorea Turner would have been alive had the BLM men not set up that roadblock. Everyone who Kyle killed and maimed would be alive and whole.

Maybe he was angry that assholes are burning and looting shit? Maybe he wanted justice?

Justice, pretty much the reason for all these protests.

This is why I have to say liberal or conservative. Politics will define if Kyle goes to jail for a slew of offences, including murder, or get nailed by illegally owning a weapon charge.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Why protest a shooting of a black man who was non compliant? His death didn't affect every BLM member or Antifa.

Maybe he was angry that assholes are burning and looting shit? Maybe he wanted justice?

Justice, pretty much the reason for all these protests.

This is why I have to say liberal or conservative. Politics will define if Kyle goes to jail for a slew of offences, including murder, or get nailed by illegally owning a weapon charge.
Click to expand...
The reason I can see for protesting Floyd/Blake and the reason many have given is that this is a part of a pattern of police killings/brutality either through accident, or intent people are killed, etc. I am more concerned with that than George himself being killed. They may have a criminal record, but shooting people in the street as a way of dealing with the situation doesn't bode well for the capability of our police. These fuckos just happen to be the spark for whatever reason.

Ever had a cop pull you over before? Did they have their hand on their gun when walking up to you? Not fun, I can assure you. Police brutality, over use of force, as well as their issues with de-escaletion and even escalation in some cases did not used to be this contested a few years ago. It is a problem.

Protests are fine, but destroying peoples property/homes is unacceptable. Not everyone in this movement is guilty of rioting in this way. Many even combat it when they see it. It's a complicated situation and it won't be so simple to resolve, or dismiss for that matter.
 
I think you are missing the point to my post. I am actually in agreement with both sides, as both sides want JUSTICE.

The protestors want justice against what is perceived as excessive force.

Kyle wanted justice for the innocent store owners. There were rioters and instances of looting and arson.

Protestors are helping out complete strangers because of the desire for justice.

Kyle was helping out complete strangers out of a desire for justice.
 
Last edited:
Like, even more than what was already known? I mean, he shot a pedo, a burglar, and a wifebeater, and then it goes "BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE"?
Honestly, you could actually fire full auto into a random rioter crowd and only make the world a better place.
Also, Grosskreutz aka Stumpy was carrying a firearm, which, as a felon, might be a bit problematic. Of course, he's still out free and continuing his participation in riots.
 
Didn't they just basically confirm that on the full bodycam footage it was visible that he swallowed his stash of pills and probably OD'd from that?
Probably all cops are gonna be let go except for the main guy, because if they let the main guy off the hook they'll have a proper 1992 LA Riot going on. At least back then they had the common courtesy to wait with the rioting until the cops were acquitted and not just screeching for justice before justice even had a chance to be buttfucked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top