USA's New Foreign Policy

[sandmann]

Once again you prove your ignorance Moose. You compare Bush to Hitler? What the fuck is this, Germany? And saying that RICoder, when he never even fuckin voiced his opinion on anything discussed here besides to point out your lack of factual evidence or actually any expertise at all, that 'people like him put Hitler in power'. He didn't even fucking support or condemn the policy and you dismiss him as blindly throwing his support to a Fascist leader. What a fucking airhead.

"Start a movement" as if you have cause for such.

He never said you can't voice your opinion. He merely stated that you were wrong and exaggerated your opinion. And he was right. You are perfectly free to voice your opinion on a PPC forum, that is what makes this country as great as it is, no one is stopping you. But don't forget that we also have the right to rightfully claim that your opinion is poorly thought-out horseshit.

Once again it bothers me severely how you compare our policy to that of Hitler's. Once again a gross education that shows your lack of education and desire to hate something you either don't know or don't have reason to hate.

And cameron, I'm so sure this country is more corrupt than any other fucking place in the world. Just about every other country is far more corrupt, far less free, far less fair. I'm not saying we are the end-all be-all of fairness and freedom, but look at any other country that is a world superpower and try to tell me they're any better. Canada is close, but they are far from an economic or military superpower, England as well. Germany is a joke. Anywhere in Asia or Africa as well. Have fun joining the fashionable anti-American crowds in countries tossing rocks at us to veer national attention from their own damn problems.

[edit] Oh, and my view on the policy. Well I sincerely hope this is a policy aimed solely at intimidating such countries. As it would exist now, it wouldn't really change things because we wouldn't (hopefully) strike preemptively against someone unless we had clear and convincing evidence, a standard we hold to even without the policy (see: Iraq). This opens up some dangerous doors, however, for interpretation of what is clear and convincing evidence. It's dangerous territory, just like going into Iraq without UN support.

[sponge]

By the way, isn't there a DMCA-like law heading towards Europe? How I pity them..

[James S]

I didn't compare Bush to Hitler, the leader of Germany did.

I was refering to Cameron, not RICoder, when I said "people like you put Hitler in power," and the fact that he didn't support or condemn the policy is PRECICLY why I said that. It's people that said, "Oh, I don't care. It's just some obscure policy to put people in a ghetto. They'll never do it, and if they do how could they possibly keep them there." You struck right onto what I was trying to say, but you were 'too ignorant' to understand.

I have plenty cause to start something. That's my right as an American citizen and it's also necessary when I see something that's blattently wrong, and against everything I thought America stood for.

It's my opinion, and that's exactly why it's not wrong, and far from "poorly thought-out horseshit." I'm thinking this new policy too far through.

I don't hate anything, and once again I'm not the one comparing Bush to Hitler. I think Bush is an alright guy. But this policy is completely wrong and could lead to so many bad things! I can't believe no one else can see what COULD come of this policy, and what COULD come from this policy is everything that's important. This policy completely disregards all Checks and Balances we have in place, the checks and balances that are for the purpose of stopping a dictatorialy president from rising to power!

And look at any other country and judging how corrupt and happy they are and 'could be' under our 'Empire of the United States' is exactly what this policy is about. This policy is purely about going in and changing whatever country we want to and turning it into a little America because we think we're such a great country and everyone should be like us. That's exactly what this policy is about!

Why don't you EDUCATE YOURSELF and actually DISCUSS this instead of blatantly blasting me because you're on some ego trip, pencil neck.

[sandmann]

First of all, I mistook you for telling RICoder that it's people like him that let Hitler rise to power. Even when it was Cameron, you are still wrong, as he didn't voice an opinion either way in that particular thread, but he obviously holds an opinion, since he seems pretty anti-American, thus anti-policy, thus if Bush really were paralleling Hitler here as you are implying, he would be one of the ones against him and trying to stop him. If he didn't he'd move away. I did not 'strike onto' what you were saying, since I was under the impression that you were talking of RICoder. Even so, you are wrong about Cameron. Let me also add that the conditions here are far from those of WWII-era Germany. It would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to have a dictator arise out of this situation.

Just because you have a right to start something doesn't mean you have cause to start something. I do not know an incredible amount about this policy (note: why I do not spew detail about it), but if my instincts would be correct, I don't think it will become permanent policy, at least not put into effect in such drastic proportions as you are predicting.

You did compare Bush to Hitler, in a roundabout way (see: 'putting jews into concentration camps was just an extension of a policy' or whatever). You were making a parallel between our policy and the Holocaust.

We can all see what can come from this. RICoder was pointing out what you were wrong about, and he was correct. I am pointing out the flaw in your logic not in opposition to the policy, but in your presentation and attack on others. Notice I never once defended the policy, and the closest I came was saying that I hoped it would be ineffective at best.

Once again you put all of the poor intentions of this policy and put them under a magnifying glass, essentially exaggerating the situation. This is not about taking over innocent countries and turning them into little utopian Americas, at least not in theory. This is about preemptive strikes against countries from which we possess strong evidence that they will be a danger to us and the world. See Iraq, nuclear and chemical weapons. This policy was not founded on such cold blood as you claim, its intention is to frame a new war policy in a new generation of warfare, where just one attack can spell disaster for ours or any other country. An age where we need to eliminate a threat before it eliminates us. I'm not saying it's easy, or pretty, or that we should necessarily be doing it alone. It does, however, need to be done, by the world community, and this policy, in theory, is a jumpstart on that idealogy.

I am educated in my attacks against you (with the exception of my mistaking your 'you would support Hitler' attack on Cameron for RICoder). Where I am not educated, I do not make leaps of faith (like you do).

My attack was not an ego trip, it was more of an outrage against stupid assumptions.

And you're one to talk about ego trips.

[James S]

LOL! Now you're talking yourself in circles! And " oh but he obviously does hold an opinion," LOL! That's the most ridiculous rebuttle I've ever heard.
And I'm not talking about a dictator like that. There are many presidents in the past that took the entire nation on a trip, such as the "UN Police Action" during the Vietnam war. About 15% of the nation agreed with that war, but the President took the nation and military on a trip, disregarding a formal declaration for war and approval of the Congress. That's the type of dictator I'm talking about, but with this policy it makes it ALRIGHT to do that, it makes it ALRIGHT to disregard approval of .. the UNITED NATIONS! The point of the United Nations is to protect the peace of the world, not back up the US in wars.

And now you turn it around and say "I don't know anything about what you're talking about, but you're stupid for making a big deal about because you're Moose."

Yes I was making a parallel, how'd you clue into that one?

Putting things under a magnifying glass is how every good researcher and scientist looks at things. The possibilities of where the policy COULD take us. Don't you understand that? One person gets elected with an ulterior motive and we're in trouble. It's THAT EASY. Just Wag the Dog and get the public behind him and we've got ourselves a full fledged 'holy war' on any nation Mr. Ulterior wants.

"It needs to be done?" What, attacking nations and overthrowing governments because a terrorist might be in there? That's so ignorant. Oh, just because we kill lots of people then it's alright?! What we need is defense, not 'pre-emptive "defense"'.

Leaps of faith? Stupid assumptions? So far that's all that YOU'VE been doing.

[TechMage]

I know it's amazing, but I agree with almost everything Moose has posted in this thread. Holy cows of India! I finally found some common ground with you Moose. Oh, and Sandmann, dude you play way too many mind games. You constantly post shit just to piss people off. I think you need some pussy.

[com]

[Cameron]

[James S]

Cam,
HAHAHA! No, you're ignorant.

1) I never said you said that

2) I was refering to the policy that Hitler put in place to put Jews in ghettos and all of the people that just said "meh, it's only a policy" or "I don't care" like you did with this policy we ARE talking about.

3) "and if you can't see that, your f'ing ignorant"


com,
EXACTLY. The USA shouldn't be worried about removing a piece of saw dust from someone else's eye when we've got a plank in our own.

[Jadam]

[com]

[James S]

Jesus said it, I can't take credit for it

[Cameron]

[com]

[sandmann]