• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

War! . . . all day every day

 
 
 
ksen

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
That about sums up Republican foreign policy proposals.

Tell me again why we should let these chicken hawks anywhere near the Commander-in-Chief's office?
 
ksen said:
That about sums up Republican foreign policy proposals.

Tell me again why we should let these chicken hawks anywhere near the Commander-in-Chief's office?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Obama has a unassailably coherent Syria policy and his $500,000,000 strategy for arming and training Syrian rebels is going better than planned.
 
ksen said:
That about sums up Republican foreign policy proposals.

Tell me again why we should let these chicken hawks anywhere near the Commander-in-Chief's office?
Click to expand...

There is that thread on that other site that talks about beheading people. Perhaps that wierdo meant republican candidates? Still, Rule 34 has filled it with headless porn now, so we never have to go back there to find out.
 
Trausti said:
ksen said:
That about sums up Republican foreign policy proposals.

Tell me again why we should let these chicken hawks anywhere near the Commander-in-Chief's office?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Obama has a unassailably coherent Syria policy and his $500,000,000 strategy for arming and training Syrian rebels is going better than planned.
Click to expand...

How does that absolve Republicans from using war as their go to choice to resolve foreign policy issues?
 
ksen said:
Trausti said:
Indeed. Obama has a unassailably coherent Syria policy and his $500,000,000 strategy for arming and training Syrian rebels is going better than planned.
Click to expand...

How does that absolve Republicans from using war as their go to choice to resolve foreign policy issues?
Click to expand...

What if war was the only answer?

(Hypothetically speaking, of course. My proposal is actually to leave the Russians strengthen Al-Assad. The monopoly of violence sometimes has civilizing effects, and nothing is worse than a prolonged and destructive civil war.)
 
ksen said:
Trausti said:
Indeed. Obama has a unassailably coherent Syria policy and his $500,000,000 strategy for arming and training Syrian rebels is going better than planned.
Click to expand...

How does that absolve Republicans from using war as their go to choice to resolve foreign policy issues?
Click to expand...

Is there a specific foreign policy question you're addressing? Have the Republican candidates proposed going to war with China to punish it for manipulating its currency? It seems the pressing foreign policy question the next president will have to deal with is Syria. Our current president is doing a shit job of handling it right now. And if anyone believes that the Syria question can be resolved without force; that person is embarrassingly delusional.
 
ksen said:
That about sums up Republican foreign policy proposals.

Tell me again why we should let these chicken hawks anywhere near the Commander-in-Chief's office?
Click to expand...

While I don't like the Republican approach to foreign policy I find it less offensive than the appeasement and ineffective measures we see from the left.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ksen said:
That about sums up Republican foreign policy proposals.

Tell me again why we should let these chicken hawks anywhere near the Commander-in-Chief's office?
Click to expand...

While I don't like the Republican approach to foreign policy I find it less offensive than the appeasement and ineffective measures we see from the left.
Click to expand...

You live in some fantasy world.

When has the left ever had any effect on US foreign policy?

US foreign policy has been far right since the day WWII ended. It is all about securing US business interests and establishing US dominance.

And there has not been the least bit of appeasement.

There is a world out there. All one has to do is open their eyes and they can see it.
 
Perspicuo said:
ksen said:
How does that absolve Republicans from using war as their go to choice to resolve foreign policy issues?
Click to expand...

What if war was the only answer?

(Hypothetically speaking, of course. My proposal is actually to leave the Russians strengthen Al-Assad. The monopoly of violence sometimes has civilizing effects, and nothing is worse than a prolonged and destructive civil war.)
Click to expand...
I think ksen/s point is that US involvement in a war is the Republican answers to resolve foreign policy issues. For example, in Syria, war is the most likely effective conflict resolution in terms of a definitive peaceful aftermath, but that does not mean the USA has to be involved.

- - - Updated - - -

Loren Pechtel said:
ksen said:
That about sums up Republican foreign policy proposals.

Tell me again why we should let these chicken hawks anywhere near the Commander-in-Chief's office?
Click to expand...

While I don't like the Republican approach to foreign policy I find it less offensive than the appeasement and ineffective measures we see from the left.
Click to expand...
Of course, because war means more dead people who look, act and think differently.
 
The US should realize, that best way to end wars is not to support the underdog or try to make a difference in the world. Just back the most likely winner. Works with Israel, no reason why it wouldn't work with Syria, and US doesn't even have to do anything, just look the other way while Russia does the dirty work.
 
War is usually just a temporary fix, plus it plants the seeds for future conflicts.
How many of our current conflicts and social problems are the result of past military adventures?
War creates blowback and unintended consequences. It's usually counter-productive in the long run.
Unfortunately, the political right sees military prowess as synonymous with greatness. They see political prestige in being the biggest bully on the block.
 
Jayjay said:
The US should realize, that best way to end wars is not to support the underdog or try to make a difference in the world. Just back the most likely winner. Works with Israel, no reason why it wouldn't work with Syria, and US doesn't even have to do anything, just look the other way while Russia does the dirty work.
Click to expand...
Good thing the US didn't follow that advice in the late 1930s.
 
laughing dog said:
Jayjay said:
The US should realize, that best way to end wars is not to support the underdog or try to make a difference in the world. Just back the most likely winner. Works with Israel, no reason why it wouldn't work with Syria, and US doesn't even have to do anything, just look the other way while Russia does the dirty work.
Click to expand...
Good thing the US didn't follow that advice in the late 1930s.
Click to expand...

The unpleasantness of the late'30s and early '40s could have all been avoided if the US had followed that advice in 1914 though.
 
laughing dog said:
Jayjay said:
The US should realize, that best way to end wars is not to support the underdog or try to make a difference in the world. Just back the most likely winner. Works with Israel, no reason why it wouldn't work with Syria, and US doesn't even have to do anything, just look the other way while Russia does the dirty work.
Click to expand...
Good thing the US didn't follow that advice in the late 1930s.
Click to expand...
In what sense do you think it didn't? Or are you being sarcastic?
 
Where are the people complaining about overpopulation and begging for more war since war is one way humans have culled our own population?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom