• 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!

World War III Has Started

While you are quite right that GWB spent too much on Iraq and that Putin played the run-up to Iraq much better than he did, the situation he left was ideal to attain the most important change for this country one can imagine. We need a restructured system of international security badly and quickly. This is well known in foreign policy circles in the US. The situation Bush left was excellent for this. The world was ready. And Obama seems to have let it slip through his fingers.

I am sure he thought he was doing good. But as the Chinese proverb points out, that is the worst kind of evil.

Jo...what Obama did or did not do with "the situation he was left"...is much, much too complicated to make the kinds of judgement you are making. Any kind of change of ANYTHING during the last 7 years required getting through the stubborn obstructionism of a Republican opposition that truly was of a "throw out the baby with the bath water" mentality.

They did not care how bad the country fared...so long as they did nothing that would allow Obama to accomplish something. Even during the first two years...when they were not in a majority...they were strong enough to insure that nothing Obama proposed would ever make it to fruition.

I understand where you are coming from...but I disagree strongly.
 
The trouble is libs are ok with a 20 trillion dollar debt, much of which is brought on by big government's massive wasteful spending

The trouble with conservatives, MR...is that they are every bit as "okay" with debt as the liberals...as long as one of their own is running up the debt. Ronald Reagan tripled the debt during his administration...but that seems to be okay and justifiable with most conservatives. George Bush more than doubled the debt during his administration...but that also was justified and okayed by conservatives.

Luckily...I am neither a conservative or a liberal...so this stuff is more visible to me than to some of you folk.
 
Jo...what Obama did or did not do with "the situation he was left"...is much, much too complicated to make the kinds of judgement you are making. Any kind of change of ANYTHING during the last 7 years required getting through the stubborn obstructionism of a Republican opposition that truly was of a "throw out the baby with the bath water" mentality.

They did not care how bad the country fared...so long as they did nothing that would allow Obama to accomplish something. Even during the first two years...when they were not in a majority...they were strong enough to insure that nothing Obama proposed would ever make it to fruition.

I understand where you are coming from...but I disagree strongly.

There you are wrong. It may be complicated to say exactly why he failed. But it is very simple to see he did.
 
We clearly lost our way in Iraq. Removing Saddam in sane from power was a good idea. The problem is we wanted to make them more like us. That is where the trouble starts. I have said a thousand times you cannot give people freedom, democracy, or any Western values until they are ready to not only accept them but are willing to fight and die for them. 100 years after the civil war and the Black people living in the USA had to march down the streets and fight for equality. They are fighting today for equality and hopefully it won't take another 100 years. Look how much progress was made when they grabbed the bull by the horns.

You are not going to Westernize these people in a decade or even a century. We must let them rule themselves the way they want to be ruled not the way we want. And when it comes to religion change could take lots of centuries.

You're right, Cheney and Rumsfeld had a terrible "plan" that only cared up to the invasion itself.
 
Uhm......:shock:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Not having to spend on a MILITARY while America held off the Soviet Union for 4 decades has it's benefits. Western European Nation's got to experiment with Socialism while we grew our Military and countered the growing threat of Communism.

What you fail to realize is that parasitic Socialist systems can only survive as long as there's a profits from a strong market driven economy to leach off of. If America makes the FOOLISH decision of experimenting with a system that targets success and wealth creation and the " eeebil Rich " and Corporations move themselves and their money, who's going to pay for things like " Single payer ", " free college " ? Who's going to support the massive welfare state that's grown exponentially because Left wing initiatives killed what's left of the economy ?

The Middle Class ?? What's left of the Middle Class ???

Socialism isn't the same as handouts, and it is the opposite of parasitic.

Capitalism is the economy of parasites. The few ticks that survive become bloated and fat, many billions of times larger than their former peers.

Vladimir Lenin's first principle of socialism "He who does not work shall not eat."

But feel free to believe the religion that suggests investing in Americans is a bad thing. It's a free country...
 
While you are quite right that GWB spent too much on Iraq and that Putin played the run-up to Iraq much better than he did, the situation he left was ideal to attain the most important change for this country one can imagine. We need a restructured system of international security badly and quickly. This is well known in foreign policy circles in the US. The situation Bush left was excellent for this. The world was ready. And Obama seems to have let it slip through his fingers.

I am sure he thought he was doing good. But as the Chinese proverb points out, that is the worst kind of evil.

What the ?!?!?!

President Bush 2 left President Obama a disaster on every front imaginable.
 
There you are wrong. It may be complicated to say exactly why he failed. But it is very simple to see he did.

The failures were had by President Bush 2 who waged a costly war of aggression on Iraq that tainted our reputation by being the most abysmal intelligence failure of our generation.
 
sometimes it's amazing how little we learned from WWI. however, calling a nuclear war at this point is mostly internet message board hyperbole. want to avoid a potentially larger war, though? don't participate. pull out of the Middle East and replace oil instead.
 
Jo...what Obama did or did not do with "the situation he was left"...is much, much too complicated to make the kinds of judgement you are making. Any kind of change of ANYTHING during the last 7 years required getting through the stubborn obstructionism of a Republican opposition that truly was of a "throw out the baby with the bath water" mentality.

They did not care how bad the country fared...so long as they did nothing that would allow Obama to accomplish something. Even during the first two years...when they were not in a majority...they were strong enough to insure that nothing Obama proposed would ever make it to fruition.

I understand where you are coming from...but I disagree strongly.

And yet, that same Republican obstruction seemed to not be enough to stop one of the most unpopular bills in recent years to become the law of the land. An Obama proposed bill. 100% of the R's voted nay. So there must be something else going on.
 
And yet, that same Republican obstruction seemed to not be enough to stop one of the most unpopular bills in recent years to become the law of the land. An Obama proposed bill. 100% of the R's voted nay. So there must be something else going on.

If you're talking about Obamacare, recall it was hoped to be much more thorough in its deployment, the resulting legislation reached far short of its initial charter.
 
If you're talking about Obamacare, recall it was hoped to be much more thorough in its deployment, the resulting legislation reached far short of its initial charter.

I am, and I was responding to the bolded in Riveroaks post.

Your point is my point. In spite of Riveroaks assertion, the R's were powerless to stop a bad bill.
 
One thing is for sure, this administration is clueless of the international chess game going on, why, they are to busy playing with themselves and I’m not talking about a board game or any resemblance of a foreign policy strategy.

Wait, I need to correct that last bit, no policy, no strategy is the liberal/socialist strategy, yup, this was the hope and change this country needed.
 
Y'know, if America were the only example of a nation reaching and maintaining first-world status, you might have a point...but it's not, and you don't.

Look at how utterly devastated Germany and Japan were. From the very beginning of their rebuilding (Japan and West Germany, that is), universal health care and inexpensive higher education were built into their systems. From almost the very beginning they had high taxes and strong regulation. From almost the very beginning from their recovery from the destruction and ruin, as soon as the occupation by Allied forces ended, they had the very same systems that they have today...the same systems of big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation that conservative dogma demands is a sure path to economic ruin.

The examples of Japan and Germany, of every first-world democracy on the planet, show that big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation DO seem to be necessary in order to have a first-world democracy...and the examples of almost every third-world democracy on the planet DO seem to show that small or weak government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation are not conducive to national prosperity.

And FYI, we became a superpower at the end of WWI - because France and England had mortgaged to us so much of their economies in order to pay for their own war effort. Not only that, but at that time we already had "big government", and the government then was in some ways more intrusive than it is today. We did not yet have high taxation - but that came later in order to pay for WWII, and along with it came the strong regulation necessary to increase technological and infrastructure development across the nation. One great example is our interstate system - just imagine how that would have wound up if there hadn't been strict regulation of how those interstate freeways were to be built and maintained!

I have always said debt is not a problem when it is a wise investment in the future. However paying young healthy people to sit at home and do nothing will never be a wise investment such as the highway system.

Germany and Japan are bad examples due to the fact we provided for their military protection after WW2. That is a lot of money for infrastructure and the future that essentially was provided by us. Germany and especially Japan have been subsidizing industry in their country in ways that are considered illegal in the USA.

To compare welfare in Japan to the USA is like comparing a steak to a slice of molded bread.
Japans entire culture is based more on family helping than government hand outs.

Welfare as Japan Knows It - A Family Affair - NYTimes.com

The USA would have no problem economically if we took the money we spend militarily running the world and spent it on infrastructure and subsidizing our industry. Then tighten and regulate welfare programs so only the truly needy received benefits and we would have money to burn. Of course in the mean time we have to let Germany and Japan rule the world militarily. We should have not stepped in during WW2 and everything would be just unicorns dancing in the fields today.
 
I have always said debt is not a problem when it is a wise investment in the future. However paying young healthy people to sit at home and do nothing will never be a wise investment such as the highway system.

Germany and Japan are bad examples due to the fact we provided for their military protection after WW2. That is a lot of money for infrastructure and the future that essentially was provided by us. Germany and especially Japan have been subsidizing industry in their country in ways that are considered illegal in the USA.

To compare welfare in Japan to the USA is like comparing a steak to a slice of molded bread.
Japans entire culture is based more on family helping than government hand outs.

Welfare as Japan Knows It - A Family Affair - NYTimes.com

The USA would have no problem economically if we took the money we spend militarily running the world and spent it on infrastructure and subsidizing our industry. Then tighten and regulate welfare programs so only the truly needy received benefits and we would have money to burn. Of course in the mean time we have to let Germany and Japan rule the world militarily. We should have not stepped in during WW2 and everything would be just unicorns dancing in the fields today.



?????????????? what does this have to do with the OP?
 
There you are wrong. It may be complicated to say exactly why he failed. But it is very simple to see he did.

He "failed" to do what you wanted him to do.

He also failed to bring world peace...and to end poverty across the globe.

So what?

Those are unreasonable goals.
 
And yet, that same Republican obstruction seemed to not be enough to stop one of the most unpopular bills in recent years to become the law of the land. An Obama proposed bill. 100% of the R's voted nay. So there must be something else going on.

So he managed SOME things.

That does not mean he could all things done.

See my post above, Jimbo.
 
So he managed SOME things.

That does not mean he could all things done.

See my post above, Jimbo.

I saw your post. I quoted your post. I even bolded the part on which I commented. I even see the walkback.

The point is, in case you really did miss it, is that the R's were powerless to stop bad D legislation, so there must be something else going on.
 
I am, and I was responding to the bolded in Riveroaks post.

Your point is my point. In spite of Riveroaks assertion, the R's were powerless to stop a bad bill.

No, actually, i'm telling you that the R's obstructionism let the healthcare industry better manipulate the bill...
 
I have always said debt is not a problem when it is a wise investment in the future. However paying young healthy people to sit at home and do nothing will never be a wise investment such as the highway system.

Germany and Japan are bad examples due to the fact we provided for their military protection after WW2. That is a lot of money for infrastructure and the future that essentially was provided by us. Germany and especially Japan have been subsidizing industry in their country in ways that are considered illegal in the USA.

To compare welfare in Japan to the USA is like comparing a steak to a slice of molded bread.
Japans entire culture is based more on family helping than government hand outs.

Welfare as Japan Knows It - A Family Affair - NYTimes.com

The USA would have no problem economically if we took the money we spend militarily running the world and spent it on infrastructure and subsidizing our industry. Then tighten and regulate welfare programs so only the truly needy received benefits and we would have money to burn. Of course in the mean time we have to let Germany and Japan rule the world militarily. We should have not stepped in during WW2 and everything would be just unicorns dancing in the fields today.

"Handouts" don't only result in people "sitting at home and doing nothing."

Our current welfare system is cost-restricted via conservatives so it is need-based. The need-basis incentivizes increases in personal income only up to where benefits are rescinded, or far past it.

All people need assistance in their lives, human babies are not self-sustaining. Many get more than they need from the bank of mom and dad.

The idea that we shouldn't help anyone is an exercise of being completely unaware of how the poor suffer.
 
No, actually, i'm telling you that the R's obstructionism let the healthcare industry better manipulate the bill...

First, I'd need some hard data on that.

Second, that has nothing to do with my post.

Bottom line, and admittedly deviating from the subject. Democrats including the administration own Obamacare. The Republicans could not and did not stop it, or even alter it. If the insurance companies were able to manipulate the bill, it was still a Democrat bill that got manipulated.
 
I have always said debt is not a problem when it is a wise investment in the future. However paying young healthy people to sit at home and do nothing will never be a wise investment such as the highway system.

Germany and Japan are bad examples due to the fact we provided for their military protection after WW2. That is a lot of money for infrastructure and the future that essentially was provided by us. Germany and especially Japan have been subsidizing industry in their country in ways that are considered illegal in the USA.

To compare welfare in Japan to the USA is like comparing a steak to a slice of molded bread.
Japans entire culture is based more on family helping than government hand outs.

Welfare as Japan Knows It - A Family Affair - NYTimes.com

The USA would have no problem economically if we took the money we spend militarily running the world and spent it on infrastructure and subsidizing our industry. Then tighten and regulate welfare programs so only the truly needy received benefits and we would have money to burn. Of course in the mean time we have to let Germany and Japan rule the world militarily. We should have not stepped in during WW2 and everything would be just unicorns dancing in the fields today.

No, your claim about Germany's and Japan's defense doesn't work, because it is conservative dogma that big government, high effective taxation, and strong regulation are a sure-fire path to economic ruin - there's NO EXCEPTION in there for how much they are or are not spending on defense. Conservative dogma does not discriminate between how the government is run or how the taxes are spent, it's the mere existence of Big (i.e. ubiquitous, omnipresent, intrusive, et al) Government and high effective taxes that ruin economies...

...and the actual results of governments that do have such as compared to those who don't...simply doesn't work. Conservative dogma's would require results that are completely opposite of what economies are strongest and most robust as compared to those that are still 'developing'. RESULTS, not dogma, is what you should be basing your argument on...because the RESULTS don't back you up at all.

I do strongly agree that we need to take a significant percentage of our defense budget and spend it instead on our infrastructure.
 
Socialism isn't the same as handouts, and it is the opposite of parasitic.

Capitalism is the economy of parasites. The few ticks that survive become bloated and fat, many billions of times larger than their former peers.

Vladimir Lenin's first principle of socialism "He who does not work shall not eat."

But feel free to believe the religion that suggests investing in Americans is a bad thing. It's a free country...

Oh my,,,we have an old school communist/socialist or better a Kropotkin follower on this forum.



“Vladimir Lenin's first principle of socialism "He who does not work shall not eat.”

A better definition is who is not a slave to the state will come under the lash, meaning torture and death…. that was pretty much the policy of Lenin. You should be ashamed to even mention this mans name, third in line for genocide and mass killings? 20 million?
 
As someone who remembers the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is clear to me we are one hell of a lot further from a nuclear World War III than we were in those days. Although President Kennedy did not know it at the time, the USSR had already delivered 158 nuclear weapons to Cuba, almost half of them of at least one megaton. He also did not know that at least one cruise missile armed with a bomb about as powerful as the one used on Hiroshima had been moved within close range of Guantanamo, which the U.S. had just reinforced with 5,700 Marines.

In little more than a week, the U.S. had moved into position a blockade line east of Cuba about 100 warships and submarines, had packed about 1,000 fighter, interceptor, and fighter-bomber aircraft into every airbase in the region, and had moved about 100,000 troops into other bases there. It had tasked the aircraft to bomb the Soviet missile sites and specified the conventional weapons for that job, and it had prepared a plan for invading Cuba with six U.S. divisions, if that became necessary.

Kennedy knew that the most likely flashpoint, though, was West Berlin, where the Soviets had heavy armored forces and were close to their home ground. That made doing nothing about Cuba extremely dangerous, because if Khruschev's enormous gamble were to pay off there, he would certainly be more likely to start trouble in Berlin again, as he had only a year before. And that could easily and quickly have led to the use of nuclear weapons. U.S. military strategy for defending Europe, recognizing the Soviet advantage in armor and in numbers, depended on using tactical nuclear weapons pretty early into any full-scale Soviet invasion into West Germany.
 
First, I'd need some hard data on that.

Second, that has nothing to do with my post.

Bottom line, and admittedly deviating from the subject. Democrats including the administration own Obamacare. The Republicans could not and did not stop it, or even alter it. If the insurance companies were able to manipulate the bill, it was still a Democrat bill that got manipulated.

If republicans would have considered supporting it, as policy that is good for the American public, then lobbying dollars would have been unable to be directed at a subset of congress.

This fact is true without regard to your inability to understand it and it absolutely impacts your "point."
 
Oh my,,,we have an old school communist/socialist or better a Kropotkin follower on this forum.



“Vladimir Lenin's first principle of socialism "He who does not work shall not eat.”

A better definition is who is not a slave to the state will come under the lash, meaning torture and death…. that was pretty much the policy of Lenin. You should be ashamed to even mention this mans name, third in line for genocide and mass killings? 20 million?

I'm not advocating Lenin's socialism, i am demonstrating your inaccurate and misguided characterization of socialism.
 
Back
Top Bottom