• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US can 'no longer drive global growth'

The Taliban are getting better and better at guerrilla warfare. They are adapting to our tactics, techniques and procedures much faster than we can change them.

Have any evidence to support this preposterous notion? Surely, you're not arguing that the US military is being outdone by anyone, anywhere, because that would be demonstrably false. Where have all the "we can't win in Iraq" people gone, anyway?

The Taliban are bunch of goat-****ing religious extremists. The US military is the most professional, most technologically advanced military on the planet. The Taliban will lose, but only if we let our military win. Why won't you let them win?

Sending more US troops will only give them more targets while providing more opportunities for incidents that turn the population in their favor?

Even without tincidents nobody....I mean NOBODY wants MORE foreign troops in their backyard.

We should just pull out and see what happens.

Pull out...and see what happens? You don't actually believe that, do you?
 
I got a better idea Simon. Since SCOTUS effectively stated that non-person entities have 1st amendment rights, why not let the vote or hold office?

Microsoft for Governor of Washington! Why not? After all, they pay taxes and have rights of people. I say we either ban them entirely, or let them act like people.

C'mon, it would be funny at least as a satirical attack as to why to let such entities influence elections.

Corporations are just a conglomeration of individuals, all of whom posses rights. There is nothing prohibiting individuals from exercising their rights collectively or through a legal medium such as a corporation.

More importantly, the Federal government does not have the authority to prohibit any type of speech, and is explicitly forbidden from doing so via the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Restrictions on "free speech" are not permitted under the Constitution.
 
Corporations are just a conglomeration of individuals, all of whom posses rights. There is nothing prohibiting individuals from exercising their rights collectively or through a legal medium such as a corporation.
This is true. But it should be changed.

More importantly, the Federal government does not have the authority to prohibit any type of speech...
Actually, it's not a universally comprehensive as that. There are indeed certain kinds of 'speech' that are illegal.

More importantly, the Federal government does not have the authority to prohibit any type of speech, and is explicitly forbidden from doing so via the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Restrictions on "free speech" are not permitted under the Constitution.
Free speech for humans != lobbying by artificial persons
 
Have any evidence to support this preposterous notion? Surely, you're not arguing that the US military is being outdone by anyone, anywhere, because that would be demonstrably false. Where have all the "we can't win in Iraq" people gone, anyway?

We bombed and practically destroyed the Taliban in 2001. Fantastico!!!. The object lesson that hurting Americans will cost you big time....so far, so good

The nightmare ****up begins with the ignorance of many Americans and US politicians would not allow us to stop there. They felt the need to install a false "democratic", stable government. We didn't learn from history. A-stan has never had a stable, centralized government. They have had, and will have for the foreseeable future, a "government" which is popular at first, but then becomes seen as oppressive, because they have to use force to suppress opposition. Why force? Because their opposition always uses force and fire must be met with fire.

The cold, hard fact is, not everyone is suited for a democratically based system of government and A-stan is a prime example. The US has to stop trying to install friendly governments. If we install them, then we get stuck defending and training them. We get associated and tarred with their excesses and abuses.

The Taliban are bunch of goat-****ing religious extremists. The US military is the most professional, most technologically advanced military on the planet. The Taliban will lose, but only if we let our military win. Why won't you let them win?

If you analyze, the parallel between this war and the American Revolution, particularly in the "We're not going anywhere" comment. Although our values are obviously different, their resolve is very much like our own patriotism, which is still very much alive today. We are both absolutely prepared to do whatever is necessary to defeat anyone who threatens our idea of government and way of life. Your goat-****ing religious extremists Afghan tribes will fight among themselves until they have a foreign enemy against which they will fight. Very similar to fighting among family members, but unity against an outsider.
Pull out...and see what happens? You don't actually believe that, do you?

Yes, I do. Nothing is going to be settled and people are dying. The US cannot ultimately defeat the Taliban on their own without killing the whole damn population. The Taliban obviously seems to have the right mindset to prevail. The question is...Do our leaders have the mindset of a complete inhilation of the Taliban???

**** no
 
It should read:

The world cannot depend as much on the US with Obama as President and a Democrat controlled Congress.


There... fixed that.

.
 
In a thread about US and world economic growth, someone says military budgets should be cut, and instantly you build a massive soap box to spew speculations such as "the budget cuts in the 1990's caused 911", etc....

Yeah, I didn't state this either. In fact, the budget cuts throughout the 90s had nothing to do with causing 9/11. So far, you vomitted two lies about my posts which are clearly written for all to read.


Just following the line of logic you employed in previous posts. Don't want to allow Iran and NK to stir up WWIII now do we? Preemptive war discussions are for a different thread/sub-forum.

Your conclusion followed no line of logic. You made a simpleton assumption. And preaching about what doesn't belong on a thread doesn't go very far when you engage in the discussion and then blow your referee whistle. It was you that brought up Iran and NK.

How about you stop acting like a weirdo every time someone begins discussing military budget cuts?

To my knowledge, this is the first time "military budget cuts" have come up in a thread outside the military threads in a long time where I've been involved. You state "everytime." Can you name these times?

Am I not allowed to engage in discussion that pertains to my lifestyle? And since it is you parading around your wannabe Mod wand, perhaps it's you that is the "weirdo."


Nobody else goes on super rants every time a "conflict of interest" arises and turns a discussion about global growth into a discussion regarding military conflict. Like i said before, not only is it odd, its ****ing weird....

Well, this is just ignorant. Plenty offer information in their posts. Plenty seek to engage in discussion. But few offer anything to discuss other than a couple lines of opinion, to include yourself. I followed the discussion and I offered thought out information. Military subject was interjected before I posted. You seem to keep overlooking this. And before I posted there was no pure discussion going on about the thread topic. The discussion has been all over in regards to budget costs and how it comes about. You might even be able to say that I am the reason this thread didn't die pages ago. Again, do my posts threaten you? Do you need the simple one liners to keep your attention or to feel like you can contribute?

You have yet to explain why I am odd and why my posts are wierd. Thus far, I simply exist in a world unfamiliar to you and it is this I believe you feel is "weird."
 
Last edited:
OK, that's a given, but not earth shattering news. There is a huge difference between the 1990's, when the US was the only major superpower, and today, which features a multipolar paradigm. We are going to have to give and receive cooperation with the Eurozone, Russia, China, South America, and all the other powers, and emerging powers out there. The fact that we can't go it alone any more is an understatement.

I don't know why people would want to go it alone anymore. The sooner we can graduate from allowing the Cold War babies of the world to step up and assume some responsibility the quicker we can begin truly dealing with our own social issues that have been neglected for so long.

I believe it's because people think that we will lose power. This is foolish. We will not lose power. We will merely share it. Even today, amidst this global economic crisis and environmental melt down, the entire world, to include absolutely everybody, looks towards us to lead. No matter how much power is shared, we will contionue to be the leader and set the direction.

One of Clinton's policies was to see an independent Europe rise so that they could no longer threaten our security. Japan was allowed to emerge economically independent after WWII. Kennedy and Nixon was dealing with making a stronger Asia. Bush and then Obama is obviously looking tomake a stronger Middle East. This is all historical. America's security has aloways relied upon the strength and health of foriegn regions. If they are strong, but traveling in the same direction as us, we can release our grip here and there and focus more on our back yard.

This is what people on the Right and the Left have all voiced in their feeble attempts to protest one foriegn entanglement after another. But not since isolationalism have we been in a position to start doing it until recently.
 
Back
Top Bottom