Politotime!

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by 4too, Dec 17, 2008.

  1. 4too

    4too Vault Senior Citizen

    Apr 30, 2003
    Bigger Picture

    Bigger Picture






    Hate?

    That's a loaded buzz word these days. Mr. Genteel-Meany! Toss if off as casually as any invective ... just like George Bush ... :( ... :)

    When I heard 8th - 9th graders lampoon the Bush Drum Beat, and elaborate on the broken record school of persuasion ,
    I understood that the Bush administration's efforts to over sell their policies and or invasion lost credibility across the social spectrum.
    Failed Bush Administration 'effort-ings' became iconic of the drum beat / broken record technique for all too many.

    With any luck, perhaps all media launched drum beats will be more transparent and less powerful a chain pull.

    We know other partisans beat the disinformation drum. Standard reflexive feature of pack journalism. Modus operandi of the game review cabal.

    And, a snarky vocabulary is certainly 'spin doctoring'. That includes you, me, and whoever else isn't afraid to know how one can twist truth.

    Consciously or unconsciously.

    Deal with it, for knowledge is power.



    Clintonisms / Bushisms.


    Did not 'get it' when folks said they were -so- fed up with Clinton,
    until,
    I strangled my media news consumption to limit my exposure to Bushisms. (Bushisms = Bush Administration.)

    Walked a mile in others shoes ... Clinton has his stained blue dress and Bush has his yellow cake that wasn't there.

    Now I see a bigger picture.

    Perhaps I could widen my world view and tar the machinations of the media and the ruling elites with a broader brush.

    Perhaps I could embrace the whole, and say "the Drum Beat of the Bush Administration ...."

    Thanks G-M, I feel lighter already ... :) !!!11!1 ;)






    4too
     
  2. Gentlemen

    Gentlemen Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    384
    Sep 24, 2008
    Re: Bigger Picture

    He only failed because a bunch of liberals cried because some soldiers were dying. Isn't that what being a soldier is about? My Lord, if the liberals of today existed during World War II, they would piss and moan so loud glass all over the world would shatter when they saw the death count of American soldiers (Way higher then the War on Terror's death toll by more then a few times). They'd go to good ol' FDR and tell him he is a horrible man and the war should stop. Thank God there weren't any liberals then.

    But I must stop this nonsense. I hate discussing politics. Especially on a video game forum. Not to mention we are getting off topic. All I ask is that you stop bringing politics into such an insignificant matter like video games.
     
  3. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Re: Bigger Picture

    I am sorry to bring that up, but not a very good example considerint the fact that most of the american population before 1942 saw no reason in a war and did not wanted to become part of it and remain in its isolationism. One can read about it in every biography about Roosevelt that he had a slightly different idea. He had the vision of „Good Neighbor Policy“

    We now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdependence with each other – that we cannot merely take but we must give as well.“
    -Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Most people expected before the war a direct confrontation with the German Reich, which was not a very popular idea in the US considering quite many had German roots and no one really liked the thought to "send their boys thausands of miles away dieng elsewhere". The US got roped in to the second world war with the attack on Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war from Germany on the US. And critics (on both sides, liberals like republicans) caused almost in the 44/45 a serious issue since the nation was extrem war-weary. It was expected that war against japan (before the nuclear bomb) would at least take till 1946 and after Okinawa it was not expected to attack the japanese mother country before novemember 1945. A few sources even say that if emperor Hirohito would have decided to escape to the japanese conquered chinese soil fighting could have lasted till 1947 even which was one of the reasons why the US wanted at all events the Soviet Union declare war on Japan which ended in the attack of the Kwantung Army [Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)]. In Europe the US is still criticised for it cause of the many concessives they gave to Stalin.

    A soldier job is not dieng for his nation. Only in the bad armies is that their "job". At least that is what we think here in Germany and what they teach in Military.
     
  4. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    Re: Bigger Picture

    FDR was the arch-liberal.

    What was it Patton said?
     
  5. Wooz

    Wooz Vault Sweeper Admin Orderite

    May 18, 2003
    Because people point out the logical fallacies in your arguments every single time? Aw. Bit of a sore loser, are you? I've always thought discussions enrich both sides, as long as they're constructive.

    Besides, it's always good to read your posts and realize that good ol' agressive wilful stupidity is alive and kicking.

    Oh yes. Because The GD forum on NMA is only about video games, those insignificant trifles/

    Dude, who are you to tell people what to say in what context?
     
  6. GarfunkeL

    GarfunkeL First time out of the vault

    32
    Jul 3, 2008
    And comparing WW2 and Iraqi War is totally pointless and a smoke-screen. Now, you could compare Vietnam and Iraqi wars - they have many similarities.

    It's bit different when your country gets attacked and the other guy declares war upon you, than when you fabricate lies about the other guy in the hope of fooling big enough percentage of your population so you can occupy a nation for it's resources.
     
  7. M-26-7

    M-26-7 Still Mildly Glowing

    246
    Jul 20, 2008
    Even that's probably not advisable. Vietnam dragged on for some twenty years and has many differences from Iraq. It's best not to compare wars in general at least not in a political fashion. I will say they're both quagmires. Though we're winning in Iraq now because the people don't believe in fighting against their invaders really, they do like money, employment, and infrastructure, which is offered by buying them off and writing them off as miltia.
     
  8. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    Are you sure? Its still waay to early to call them shots. Remember 'Mission Accomplished?' The only way you are going to 'win' in Iraq is if the country does not desintegrate into civil war and political turmoil when yankee go home. 4-5 years later, if the country is stable, then maybe then, and only then, will I agree with you have achieved a 'victory'.
     
  9. Bal-Sagoth

    Bal-Sagoth Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    996
    Nov 1, 2008
    Yes pretty sure, Iraq post surge is not the "wild west" it once was.

    Afghanistan... now that is a very different story. :?
     
  10. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    You're missing my point. What will happen when the troops leave? That is when you will find out if you have achieved victory or not.
     
  11. Bal-Sagoth

    Bal-Sagoth Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    996
    Nov 1, 2008
    That would depend on what you consider "victory".
     
  12. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    I define victory as having achieved your objectives for entering Iraq. Toppling Saddam's regime. Tick. Finding weapons of mass destruction. Fail. Establishing a stable political order, based on democracy, libertarian principles and so on, which can stand on its own two feet. (read without us assistance + troop support) In progress - whether it works or not is how I define victory.

    Thats the problem with the majority of americans I speak to, they fail to see the bigger picture. Sure, the surge is working NOW, but you have to look at the longer term. What happens when you leave? In the long term, was it really a good idea to invade Iraq? Saddam would probably have killed less people in the 5 years preceding the invasion than died as a direct result of it. Less extremists would have rallied to the Iraqui and extremist cause without the invasion, and thus reducing the likelyhood of attacks on America, than with it.

    These are the things people have to take into consideration, which is often forgotten. There are also consequences to your actions which are not immediate, and so require more than just immediate thinking.
     
  13. Bal-Sagoth

    Bal-Sagoth Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    996
    Nov 1, 2008
    I was more or less saying some of us do not give a damn what happens to Iraq after we leave. We kicked some ass and post-surge it is a fairly calm place compared to what it once was.

    If we are looking at it from the point of view you stated however I agree, it is far to early to tell if Iraq can sink or swim on its own. It does not really bother me much either way.
    I suppose if I had to choose I would much rather the country not erupt into chaos. As I said in another thread tho, once we leave it is no longer our problem.

    Bigger fish to fry and all that.

    Personally I am ready to get the hell out of there and put some more boots on the ground in Afghan.
     
  14. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    Oh dear.

    According to that mentality, I can assure you Iraq was a much calmer place under saddam than it is even now with the surge policy.

    Once you leave it is no longer YOUR problem? Off course it is. You were the ones who invaded and toppled the current regime. No matter how brutal and inhumane it may have been, it was stable. What happens to Iraq post invasion is wholly your responsability. Its also in your best interest it becomes a stable country.

    Its this kind of short-sightedness I have been aluding to in previous posts which will be the undoing of the United States this century.

    You would prefer to get the troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan as quick as possible to deal with the problems there. Even if you could destroy the taleban and Al Quaeda from a purely military perspective (which you can't) you are ignoring the future.

    Leaving Iraq a shambles will remind the world how much of a irresponsible and futile world power the US is, increasing the chances nations move in one way or another against U.S primacy. This is AGAINST your long term interests. The invasion has been a sucess for Al Quaeda and a quagmire for the U.S, because its an effective recruitment tool for extremists and a political defeat for the U.S. This is again, AGAINST your long term interests.

    Seriously, these are the kinds of short terms gains which compromise your future. If you refuse to see that, fine, it suits me.
     
  15. Bal-Sagoth

    Bal-Sagoth Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    996
    Nov 1, 2008
    Maybe it was, as I said before honestly I could care less. I am ready for U.S. forces to get out of there.



    I am not going to lose any sleep at night if the nation falls into a bloody civil war and thousands die after we leave.


    To be honest I would rather not be in Afghanistan right now either. However I am realistic and we both know Obama is going to pump at least two more combat battalions into Afghan.

    I have no fantasy of ever completely controlling Afghanistan. While we are forced to be there if we can kill a few thousand of the bastards so be it.

    What would you have us do? If Iraq explodes into chaos and they want to butcher and maim each other for another decade by all means let them. I do not wish anymore Americans to die in that place.

    Despite my right wing warmongering attitude I never fully agreed with the invasion of Iraq. I would have much preferred we had stuck to Afghanistan (a war I fully supported 100%).

    The only reason it comes off as being pro Iraq war is because I support the slaughter/destruction of anyone who practices a radical Islamic ideology.

    I am very eager to get combat troops out of there. I have a feeling however it is not going to be quite as soon as everyone wants.
     
  16. ceacar99

    ceacar99 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    128
    Nov 11, 2008
    liberals started the second world war. they were the leaders of germany. people tend to flock to the liberals because they feel disenfranchised but the truth is that they have a historical tendancy to be absolutely controlling and destroy those not like them. it has to do with the mentality, they believe that they are right and that nobody else is. i like to tout capitalists like myself that believe people should constantly have their ideas compete and see whats best but people like that are actually rare.

    i bring that up because well, the vote for obama or the modern viewpoint that "clinton was a great president"..... sheesh....

    lol the funny thing is that iraq was actually one of the better places to live in the region, it even was a secular nation as compared to many of its neighbors.

    on a side note, i'd like to say at least 90% of the marines i talk to actually enjoy their deployments to afganistan and iraq....
     
  17. Bal-Sagoth

    Bal-Sagoth Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    996
    Nov 1, 2008
    I cannot speak for Afghanistan as I do not know any currently deployed there. However I just talked to one of my Marine friends tonight who is in Iraq and he is having a blast serving his country by playing World of Warcraft into the wee hours of the morning :P.
     
  18. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    The problem is Iraq should have never have been invaded in the first place, period. The damage is done and there is little the U.S can do to make it work, unless somehow you magically manage to pull off a sucessful government there, which would be a good face saving measure.

    Afghanistan is another story, but even there you will have to talk to the taleban. Even your senior military strategists see that, there is no purely military solution.

    What I would have the U.S do? Think before they act next time they act. At least you seem to ble able to recognise at least one of these wars is not in the favour of the U.S. I don't mind warmongering, but I do mind it being done with rationality and pragmatism rather than the other way round.
     
  19. Mikey

    Mikey Half-way Through My Half-life
    Orderite

    Aug 2, 2004
    Wait, what?
     
  20. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    I remember when you ripped me a new one in a thread about anarchism.

    Good times. I was afraid to use the forum for the next month.