Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LogicalFallacy

Yes! The US is getting its nose into another country

Recommended Posts

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/2/18/18229695/venezuela-trump-military-guaido-maduro 

 

Well we all know what a resounding success the US has going into countries and supporting one leader over another don't we? (Doesn't anyone remember Osama Bin Laden?) Let the people down there sort their shit out! What's gonna happen is the US will 'back' 'depose' or otherwise intervene, then half the population there will never be happy and you'll have you next ISIS or Al Qaeda... but closer to home. 

 


 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep let em sort their own shit out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burnedout said:

Nor would I have a problem arming the rebels and average people with firearms

Cos supplying guns to rebels has worked out so well in the past. US support of Osama, Saddam and the Taliban really paid off. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should stick to fixing our country first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone's sliding to the lib side.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

So...

 

Is it OK for the government to wholesale slaughter the people who oppose them? That is what is likely to happen to dissenters in Venezuela now. What if those people choose to go down fighting?  Why would  you want to stop them?  Why would you want to leave them defenseless? 

 

I'm not sure if this is a red herring or a straw man... no I think it's a straw man. Wertbag wasn't discussing the desirability or not of having an armed populace, he was pointing out that US interference(In this case by arming one group of people) historically doesn't go well.

 

Try and at least argue the point.

 

PS I can't believe all you die hard conservatives are agreeing with a …. what do you call us.. libtard or something? My heart warms, I love you guys. We agree on something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not conservative as much as it is libertarian philosophical values. The conservatives and liberals are generally for global intervention. And larger government than is necessary. Libertarian philosophy is what opposes the two. And the conservatives who oppose interventionism, do so from the libertarian aspect of their conservatism. It's the position of butting out of the game of world policing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

I make a point and you just want to boil everything down to some arbitrary rules.  Typical.  avoid the forest by using the trees.  But what do you expect from millenials?  LOL!  ;)

 

It's not our fault that every time we discuss water quality you want to start talking about soil composition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aries256 said:

We should stick to fixing our country first

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I'm going to play with BO's strawman. May the logical gods forgive me :P

 

9 hours ago, Burnedout said:

Is it OK for the government to wholesale slaughter the people who oppose them?

 

No. Who said that? I'll drive a stake up his rear!

 

Quote

That is what is likely to happen to dissenters in Venezuela now.

 

Any in every other shit hole country across the world. We are so glad the US is so humanitarian these days, pity they didn't get on board with the effort earlier in WW2.

 

Quote

What if those people choose to go down fighting?

 

Then go down fighting they will.

 

Quote

  Why would  you want to stop them?

 

I don't. Fight for what you believe in and your freedom I say.

 

Quote

  Why would you want to leave them defenceless? 

 

I think the question here is why wouldn't you want to support one particular group of people and arm them... well lets look at history and find out how well that's worked, and the resounding success.... ahhh yeah.. none.

 

Often all that happens is you increase the amount of weapons in a country and every ends up shooting each other and you just end up with a big bloody mess.... because the fantasy of the trodden down people all uniting and quickly beating the single bad oppressor doesn't happen. You'll end up with splintered factions all vying for power. Study some history.

 

So, in ending, I feel for the people down there, but it's their country and their mess. They have to sort it out. If the US ends up having a big civil war 2.0 do you want Russia barging in and supporting one group while China supports another?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

What is YOUR solution?

 

Didn't I give a solution in the last line which is pretty much in line with what everyone else has said in this thread?

 

Civil matters are civil matters. Let them sort their shit out, then we start diplomatic relations with whoever ends up in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

So, you throw shit but never offer a solution.  HA!  I say arm the people so they can take care of themselves even against their own government thugs. We should stay out, but let them be able to defend themselves with weapons we sell them.  It is called trade. 

 

I... already... mentioned.... why... I'm.... against... that... errr 'trade'.

 

We live on earth, not in your fantasy dream world. On earth, unlike your dream world, when one government, particularly the US in the last 70 or so years, goes and interferes whether by direct military conquest, or by trading arms (As has happened south of your boarder before) it doesn't turn out well, and you don't get your dream ending.

 

You are holding onto this arm the people against the government without taking a look at the wider picture, historical results (Or the lack is more accurate) and the likely outcome. You are holding to an ideal without considering the practical consequences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

FUCK the so-called "practical consequences".  Some things are worth dying for.  The thing you do is take as many people out who are your enemy as you can on the way out. You never know, you might just win.  At the very least, make the cost to an enemy so high that they don't want to risk not seeing their family again.  They MAY win, but at what cost?  Maybe even take out their family members so they are grief stricken and raging fools. 

 

May the god that does not exist help us if you ever end up in a position of world leadership.

 

Isn't holding to idealism regardless of practicality and consequences what you accuse the raging left of being guilty of? Seems like holding to ideology and dogma is not just a disease of the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

FUCK the so-called "practical consequences".  Some things are worth dying for.  The thing you do is take as many people out who are your enemy as you can on the way out. You never know, you might just win.  At the very least, make the cost to an enemy so high that they don't want to risk not seeing their family again.  They MAY win, but at what cost?  Maybe even take out their family members so they are grief stricken and raging fools. 

Worked out pretty well in Vietnam, I'd say.  🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

Maybe even take out their family members so they are grief stricken and raging fools. 

 

I don't want to assume what you mean here: Are you saying you think taking out family members of combatants even if they are not combatants themselves is justified? Or have I read that wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

That was a war we should never have been in. 

Name one since 1945 that we should have been in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Name one since 1945 that we should have been in.

 

That's a pretty strong point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

PS I can't believe all you die hard conservatives are agreeing with a …. what do you call us.. libtard or something? My heart warms, I love you guys. We agree on something!

 

Well, we're not just standard conservatives. We're ex-Christian conservatives, meaning we think for ourselves! :)

 

I have no idea if this is a liberal or conservative position, but I would actually say that it's a bad idea to comment on the situation in Venezuela. I think Trump might be using this as an opportunity to bash socialism (in which case I agree with him). But taking sides in the affairs of craphole countries is a bad idea. It's like getting in the mud to wrestle a pig. It just makes you dirty, and besides that the pig likes it. In keeping with my apathy towards those less fortunate, I would say that we should let these people kill each other if only to reduce the pool of potential illegal immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

I agree, NONE!  Plus WW2 had been the last war that was a constitutional war.  In other words, Congress had declared it.  

 

I'm surprised no one likes to talk about this. Since the Vietnam Era the President's powers have increased dramatically, and it is Congress that has ceded this power. The liberals are currently complaining about Trump's National Emergency declaration, ignoring that this power is made possible by an act of Congress. I'm glad Trump is doing what he is doing to stem the effects of Obama's leniency towards refugees and Muslims (neither of which have a place on American soil, in my opinion). But in general, I hope this leads Congress to take its power back from the Presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Bhim said:

But in general, I hope this leads Congress to take its power back from the Presidency.

I think this would be good for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burnedout said:

The thing you do is take as many people out who are your enemy as you can on the way out. You never know, you might just win.

The problem with a modern civil war is that everyone loses. When your citizens turn on each other in bloody conflict then your country will be ruined. But in this particular case we aren't even talking about homeland defence but in going to another nation and supplying everyone with illegal arms. You are attempting to start a war, which is about as involved in other nations business as you can be. 

 

Whats the solution? I would say the current handling has been correct. They have supplied aid, knowing it would be blocked and using that as a wedge between the government and army. That is where the power lays and where the change needs to come from. If the military start a coup then nothing will stop them. So all focus and diplomacy needs to be with the generals. With offers of aid, trade, support and ongoing economic development, you should be able to make those in power see what is best for the country and its people. Push for a bloodless coup and help them recover once the borders open. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Name one since 1945 that we should have been in.

 

Well if alqueda really were the ones that were behind 911 then I would say that the war in Afghanistan was needed. But I really don’t know for sure. It really seemed like once bush was in Afghanistan all he cared about was getting in Iraq and killing Sadam. The way the 3 towers fell and how it all panned out still make me wonder who was really behind that. 

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Well if alqueda really were the ones that were behind 911 then I would say that the war in Afghanistan was needed. 

That's the big question, though, isn't It?  I've never believed for a minute that our government was not somehow duplicitous.  But since the term "conspiracy theorist" carries such stigma, those who question publicly are easily laughed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burnedout said:

In a civil war, everybody loses yes, but you just don't give a shit.

No, YOU don't give a shit, all right minded people should abhor mass murder. We aren't even talking about meeting violence with violence, like in such places where there is racial, religious or ethnic killings, but taking a separate sovereign nation, pouring fuel on them and tossing in a match. 

 

I would agree in a self defence situation or repelling foreign invaders that violence is warranted, but that is not the situation here. Escalation of violence should be the last resort not the first. 

 

Venezuela is impoverished and terribly run but they are not directly murdering their citizens. What you are suggesting is skipping any potential non-violent solution and going straight to mass killings. 

We agree the military is split and that is where progress can be made. Once they are onside then there is no need of civil war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.