So far, you have not really beaten my arguments. You have just repeated stero-typical anti war banter without looking at facts except for those which supportive of your ideas.

So far you've provided no evidence on why intervention in Afghanistan was necessary, especially when it's done nothing.

How did I contradict myself? I never said revolution is inevitable in all countries

If it's inevitable in Burma it should be inevitable in Afghanistan.

Sometimes somebody has to clean up the shit in this world nobody else wants too

And bombing folk for fifteen years straight will help? Invading a country in civil war between two Islamic fundamentalist groups and then implanting another isn't helping. Neither is supporting state building in countries like Somalia, where it sets them back every time.

We need start getting UN support and get the lazy European nations off their asses and actually make some real coalitions.

You need to sit down , and stop doing this nonsense around the world, and be a real libertarian , not a conservative. You and the liberals have destroyed countless nations. Also, when you sit down, kindly leave folk the heck alone.

Sometimes somebody has to clean up the shit in this world nobody else wants too. America has had that job for a long time

No...no government does anything for the greater good, good of folk: it's all to the good of themselves, ultimately. The grounds that some countries send foreign help is since it's pretty cheap, and makes a great propoganda case. Perhaps Adolf Hitler, he was a legitimate nationalist, you can make a better argument that he was cleaning up the shit in the world noone else wants to - he thought he was, as opposed to modern politicians who eat banknotes.

its getting to a point when we don't recognize where we are actually needed and where we would just make things worse.

It's been at that point for a very long time. All the way back to government-supported genocide of the indigenous Americans.

get the lazy European nations off their asses and actually make some real coalitions.

They're not lazy, they're just not (as) militaristic. I'd rather taxes be spent on free healthcare rather than free deathbringers.

Edited 5/20/2016 17:18:12

ppl die get over it

over what?

deth

countries intervene in other countries for their own interests

then ppl die

ppl die get over it

Smedly, let me make something clear. I am a libertarian and a realist. Basically, I am a libertarian who doesn't allow the make believe world of everything being fair cloud my judgment. I will always strive for equality and personal freedom, always. But I will not allow idealism block my view of what will probably happen. Your right, America needs to sit down. She needs to let the UK, France, Canada, Arabia, and many other nations pick up some of the slack. Americans are tired of sending there kids off to war just so the government can get there damn political agenda accomplished and so other nations can snear down on us for doing the dirty shit they think their too good for. Let the UK handle intelligence, lord knows their intelligence is just as good as the CIA. Let France and Turkey handle the airstrikes, they have the air power. Let Arabia and Jordan fight ISIS on the ground, they have more than enough. Let Israel help too, there in the region.

Lets think about this for a second. If the world is soooo tired of " American Tyranny " why have they not already done this?. Your completely right, the CIA acts like its its own nation, Bush and Obama are most likely guilty of War crimes and should be convicted. So? whats the issue? what's stopping them?. Is it that's its a waste? that's partly true. we should not be involved in half of what we are but we can all agree that we need to fight ISIS. You know why? its not because they cant, not because its against there so called ' Morals '. Its because they don't want too. They cant work together. France would never take over the airstrikes, Briton would not invest that much time unless they had too, and can you imagine if Israel, Arabia, and Jordan worked together to fight ISIS on the ground? They would start their own freaking war with themselves over where the fronts should be!. I am in complete favor of America retiring from the world stage. Heck, if China outdid us as the next Superpower, I would be extremely happy. But we cant. The United Nations is nothing without America, Briton and France. America is the fang that draws blood from rogue nations and terrorist groups all over the world. So defang us without someone else to lead the pack we will see how long the rest of the world lasts against ISIS, North Korea and others.

In conclusion, I agree with you. I find your argument closely resembles bullshit however because you don't think far enough ahead. Sure, if America stopped leading tomorrow, a lot of badly placed invasions would never happen and many lives would be saved. But what about the conflict, a couple years down the road, that must be fought. I will respect arguments that America needs drop off from the world stage once those same people have a back plan for when a super power will be needed to fight for there freedom or survival. Don't talk the talk if you have no idea how to walk the walk.

If the world is soooo tired of " American Tyranny " why have they not already done this?

Because the governments are either American controlled , heavily American influenced or too weak to go against America.

They cant work together. France would never take over the airstrikes, Briton would not invest that much time unless they had too, and can you imagine if Israel, Arabia, and Jordan worked together to fight ISIS on the ground?

ISIS's support evaporates as soon as America doesn't invade every other country and commit mass murder there.

But we cant. The United Nations is nothing without America

The United Nations is already nothing.

America is the fang that draws blood from rogue nations and terrorist groups all over the world.

Except it isn't. It supports awful torturing and enslaving nations around the world, it doesn't do anything against Burma, China, Eritrea, etc. It supports terrorist groups like the FSA and generally doesn't do anything against it's own interests. It isn't some holy hammer, it's a reincarnation of the god-awful British Empire, but with extreme socialism.

But what about the conflict, a couple years down the road, that must be fought

And when has one of these conflicts occurred without being directly caused by a prior conflict or intervention? Japan became expansionist when the US stopped trading, and ruined the world economy, while antagonizing it with military acts near it. Germany became imperialist because a man was able to take advantage of post-WW1 discontent. ISIS formed because radical Islamists were able to radicalize young men who were unstable , because the US had ruined their entire lives up to that point.

I will respect arguments that America needs drop off from the world stage once those same people have a back plan for when a super power will be needed to fight for there freedom or survival

Stopping anti-industry measures will get tens of thousands of industrial jobs to come back to America, and getting rid of the masses of government employees and soldiers will also help, by filling up jobs. After WW2 ended, millions of soldiers filled up those industrial roles. The US also has two large oceans and two weak neighbors, so it's not like it is hard to defend, especially when no country wants to actually invade.

I'll respect warmongering bastards like you when you fight in a war, a actual war, and come back with your same attitudes.

She needs to let the UK, France, Canada, Arabia, and many other nations pick up some of the slack.

You're not noninterventionist, if you support war, just by different doers.

No picking up the bloody katana America holds.

Americans are tired of sending there kids off to war

The draft ended in 1973 in America - noone's sending anyone off, these "kids" voluntarily sign up to kill and be killed.

If the world is soooo tired of " American Tyranny " why have they not already done this?

It'd be dangerous and unforecastable and false, now. Noone does anything rash without loads of time put into it. As I said earlier, power finds a king, and frankly, America isn't even king now, it's China. However, America is more militaristic, so kind of like British Empire/Germany setting here.

If America's taking down, what's stopping China from totally ruling the world? Or if China is taken down?

Why don't you think Americans are cannonblasting Petrograd and Shanghai? Both big foes that need to be ridded. Or that Russia is flicking off the American forces in Romania and Poland, or beginning an unlocalised invasion of Ukraine to Kyiv?

That's now how polit works today, especially with core weapon holders. Anyone who'd try to legitimately take down America would be grinded down so much itself that they would just be even more of a pawn to another king than they were before.

The United Nations is nothing without America, Briton and France.

Are you just kidding at this point? China beats all 3 of them combined, although it is given 1/5 a permanent vote, along with Russia. However, as it stands, the UN already is nothing. They have a few health agencies which are good, other than that, it's nothing. In the 1990s Eritrean-Ethiopian border war, which was over a small dispute but actually grew into a pretty big war on two countries in which half their population was literally starving already, not even an UN vote was called on it, no agencies sent there, nothing, naught. The UN never stops any wars. You can say Rwanda, but no, UN didn't even try to stop the war, but just passively tried to help refugees escape. And that's it.

You say that Smedley's got to stop believing in make-believe, but you think NATO is these moral countries that mess up sometimes, but do their best to keep world peace and order. But that's wrong! 100%, it's NATO that is fighting and bringing about most wars today, and that's why today America is thought as the number 1 threat to world peace, while Americans somehow think that it's Iran that is the biggest threat to world peace.

Iran, let's look at its ongoing wars: fighting in Iraq (a neighbour controlled by two very hostile anti-Iranian forces), and the intervention in Syria (which by the way, it is taking the leading role in - so Iran will take over what America does, it's ok, you don't have to worry about no country doing good moral things and putting the world in order.)

Ongoing American-fought wars? Well, nothing semi-defensive like Iran's doing in Iraq, but America is warring in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan, all more or less against their will. Even though Pakistan and America are "technically" on the same side, there's been so much "friendly fire" and what Pakis call a violation of international sovereignty that that 60% believe that they're actively fighting America.

America is the fang that draws blood from rogue nations and terrorist groups all over the world.

Hmm, Libya is a rogue country? Gaddafi, the man who said that if one Libyan is homeless, he will live without a home until they get one (he slept in a tent every day)? The Getúlio Vargas of Libya, who developped the country, and ended starving? Oh yeah, I forgot, he was Muslim and refused to become an American ally, so that makes him awful.

Iraq? Where America basically ended the secular government that allowed Christians in government (something that the IR does not do now)? That it let loose all the Islamic extremism, funded it, and will ruin Iraq for decades? Oh yeah, I forgot, OPEC countries are either very good, very bad, or very wrecked, and if it's not, we need to make it that way, right?

Yes, America does the right thing, it helps folk. In the Gulf War, it helped the poor Kuwaiti nation under attack by killing 1/15 Iraqi men (while almost no Kuwaiti, even proportionally, died). But in the Rwandan Civil War, where folk were actually doing genocide, America just said, eh. Or in the Djibouti Revolt, where folk tried to overthrow the systematically ethnically-biased government? America wasn't there, but don't worry, France had it covered...to help the govenrnment win.

Really, dismiss these silly thoughts, America's a warmongering country with the same faults as all governments. Pragmatic polit, combined with corporatist militarism.

Why is it that an anti-American government like Choson gets so much attention, when Eritrea, although not anti-American, actually does not have core weapons of any kind, and is rated worse than Choson in words of freedom by the RWB? Eritrea has the highest spending on military forces as % budget of all countries, and is already pretty wrecked through Ethiopian gendarmes. But no, I guess taking away the right to vote for women is more weighty, you're right.

But what about the conflict, a couple years down the road, that must be fought.

No war must ever be fought. Ever. It's never justifiable to fight, even in the most defensive of defensive wars - you stoop down to their level, you become pigs like them when you do. Gandhi made the British soldiers fighting and slaughtering Indians there realise what pigs they were, but he always strongly criticised fighting back against the British.

I will respect arguments that America needs drop off from the world stage once those same people have a back plan for when a super power will be needed to fight for there freedom or survival.

Seriously, do all you know about polit is from Warlight diplomacies? Ok, let's pick Iran to be replace what America's doing, and America should give its core weapons to Iran, too - we don't need too many core weapon states, especially from a country that's not a superpower.

Ok, terrific plan, Iran will start by invading Mexico and Colombia, taking that load off America.

Sorry I could not read those walls of texts lol, lazy eyes and all.



" you think NATO is these moral countries that mess up sometimes, but do their best to keep world peace and order "

^ that's actually pretty much what I believe except for the moral part. Governments are not moral, people are.





" I'll respect warmongering bastards like you when you fight in a war, a actual war, and come back with your same attitudes. "


^ First off, Smedly, I really hope you did time in the military otherwise this statement was highly hypocritical. Also, most men who voluntary go off to war come from very strong, patriotic, traditional homes. They believe its there duty, not some task.


" Yes, America does the right thing, it helps folk. In the Gulf War, it helped the poor Kuwaiti nation under attack by killing 1/15 Iraqi men (while almost no Kuwaiti, even proportionally, died). But in the Rwandan Civil War, where folk were actually doing genocide, America just said, eh. Or in the Djibouti Revolt, where folk tried to overthrow the systematically ethnically-biased government? America wasn't there, but don't worry, France had it covered...to help the govenrnment win. "


^ So what your saying is you don't like America intervening unless you think we should.....interesting






" No war must ever be fought. Ever. It's never justifiable to fight, even in the most defensive of defensive wars - you stoop down to their level, you become pigs like them when you do. Gandhi made the British soldiers fighting and slaughtering Indians there realise what pigs they were, but he always strongly criticised fighting back against the British. "


^ Ok, now your argument makes more sense, there is reasoning behind your madness lol. Yeah great policy, too bad it was just as expensive in human lives as actual fighting might have been. Also, Gandhi was resisting hundred of years of occupation. IT wasn't as if the british came in yesterday and raped all the woman and children ( They did do that over the course of century though ). There is a BIG DIFFERNCE between a war and occupation. I actually agree with Ghandis policies, because he was not fighting a war. He was leading a movement for freedom.





" Seriously, do all you know about polit is from Warlight diplomacies? Ok, let's pick Iran to be replace what America's doing, and America should give its core weapons to Iran, too - we don't need too many core weapon states, especially from a country that's not a superpower. "

^ First off, not very nice. I am an intelligent human being who has made my opinion based off of years of study and thought. I am questioning your opinion, not your intelligence so please refrain from childish insults ( Btw Sorry for calling your argument bullshit smedly lol ) And I actually don't like the fact America has this much power because it has corrupted our government.



" Are you just kidding at this point? China beats all 3 of them combined, although it is given 1/5 a permanent vote, along with Russia. However, as it stands, the UN already is nothing. They have a few health agencies which are good, other than that, it's nothing. In the 1990s Eritrean-Ethiopian border war, which was over a small dispute but actually grew into a pretty big war on two countries in which half their population was literally starving already, not even an UN vote was called on it, no agencies sent there, nothing, naught. The UN never stops any wars. You can say Rwanda, but no, UN didn't even try to stop the war, but just passively tried to help refugees escape. And that's it."


^ Finally, we have agreed on something

^ First off, Smedly, I really hope you did time in the military otherwise this statement was highly hypocritical

It's not hypocritical at all. You want to send folk to war but don't want to fight a war. You're the only one being hypocritical.

Please quote the part of this debate where I said " I want to send Americans off to war ".

Who said I wouldn't fight in a war? Did I ever say that?. Thats why your an illogical debater, you assume wayyyyyyyy to much. I would fight for a cause I believed in. If Russia nuked Paris tomorrow I would sign on to serve my country as they help our allies. Of course I would be nervous and frightened but I'm more scared of losing the freedom I love so much then fighting for it. Btw, I've got basic JMT training so I do know a lot of basic combat skills and I do know what some of those guys go through, it's hell. Which is exactly why I will always preach that war must be the last option.

Edited 5/21/2016 03:07:48

You support the interventions in Afghanistan and more intervening in places around the world. That is wanting to send folk to war. And no, you don't know what they go through. You've never been under artillery fire, you've never seen your friends be blown to bits in front of you, and you've never had lice eat you alive while you sit in your filth in your trench. And you propose sending folk to do those things, to "defend" freedom.

You aren't using war as a last resort, you're using it as a first resort, being pro-Afghan invasion, pro-Beograd bombings, pro-gulf war, pro-Mashriq war, etc.

I will now proceed to rip your arguments, beware


1: Once again your assuming too much. Never said I supported the gulf war or Mashriq war so please, actually think before you type.


2: Please tell me what else could be done about Afghanistan? I like to hear your grand solution



3: I said I knew parts, not all. And please, I know it's second nature, but please refrain from lecturing me about what I do and do not know, thank you.



4: Where else do I support intervention, based on what I have said?

what would be interesting to counter islamic terrorism is simply to do nothing

you had the leader of al qaeda telling all the forces in the middle east to unite or they will all die. the guy even mentioned that if the US invaded the middle east through ground forces, they could all unite and fight the western forces

he pretty much said that the should expel the western forces out and resume to fight each other once more

funny stuff isnt it

lets implement a policy of doing nothing in the ME and see what it does for us

Never said I supported the gulf war or Mashriq war

The Mashriq war is the war against ISIS, and you most likely support the Gulf War.

2: Please tell me what else could be done about Afghanistan? I like to hear your grand solution

Not invading it because it presented no danger to the US, it's freedoms, and invading it would only make the situation in Afghanistan worse.

4: Where else do I support intervention, based on what I have said?

I remember you talking about how bombing Serbia and Milosevic was necessary because of the ethnic cleansing in Kosova(which was proven to be false).

1: " I remember you talking about how bombing Serbia and Milosevic was necessary because of the ethnic cleansing in Kosova(which was proven to be false). "

^ You know, for someone who was just lecturing me about how horrible military intervention is and trying to exercise your supposed knowledge on average day military life, you have certainly failed to see the difference between a bombing campaign and an actual ground war.
Go read some books on modern tactics and histories, THERE IS A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between dropping some bombs and fighting a war. I did support the bombing campaign, that does not contradict my disapproval of ground forces intervention. Also, I think the thousands of dead Muslims and there families might have some issues with you saying the genocide was " false " unless you have some top secret information from Pentagon papers you stole? Along with ' proof ' that Bush did 9/11 and that the illuminati are currently masters of the world banking system?



2: " The Mashriq war is the war against ISIS, and you most likely support the Gulf War. "


^ " Most likely " My God, my debate teacher would shoot herself if she saw that statement Lol. Don't ever assume that I " Most likely " support anything. And for the record,I did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Also, I did not know they had a name for the war against ISIS.

You know, for someone who was just lecturing me about how horrible military intervention is and trying to exercise your supposed knowledge on average day military life, you have certainly failed to see the difference between a bombing campaign and an actual ground war.

You know, for a violent warmongering psychopath, you seem to forget that there is more than one side in a war, and bombing one to shit is still fighting a war and killing lots of folk.

Also, I think the thousands of dead Muslims and there families might have some issues with you saying the genocide was " false " unless you have some top secret information from Pentagon papers you stole

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm

Also, I was referring to the first gulf war.

" You know, for a violent warmongering psychopath, you seem to forget that there is more than one side in a war, and bombing one to shit is still fighting a war and killing lots of folk. "

^ Lol I'm gonna enjoy this one

1: Lets see what the Wikipedia definition is?

"Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/), also known as—though sometimes differentiated from—sociopathy (/soʊsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior."


^ Yeah......that definitely is me. You should be a doctor, considering you diagnosed me over the internet in such a quick manner. My goodness, please make your insults at least relevant to the conversation. An example. Since we are talking about war and intervention, you could call me " LBJ " or " Reaganite " considering they were both renowned interventionists.



2: Todays definition of war refers to a formal declaration of one nation upon another. If no such declaration exists between two nations, it Is characterised as a " Conflict "

Edited 5/21/2016 18:48:38

Definition of war:

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Also on you being a immoral psychopath:

"Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/), also known as—though sometimes differentiated from—sociopathy (/soʊsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior."

You seem to have little to no remorse for the thousands killed in Afghanistan by the US. Especially since you also have empathy for the tens of thousands that will be killed if the US stays in the Middle East instead of leaving and ending the conflict right then and there.

Edited 5/21/2016 18:47:15