2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Flapp_Jackson on September 05, 2016, 11:23:06 PM
-
Trump's slogan is "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Clinton repeats in her rallies, "AMERICA IS ALREADY GREAT!"
China disrespected Obama this week upon his arrival at the G20 Summit. This is pretty harsh treatment for the "most powerful man in the world."
Most already know the world disrespects the US more now than ever, but the media repeats Obama's talking points that international relations are better now that under Bush.
If you like your greatness, you can keep your greatness ..... Maybe he could bow a few more times to show we deserve respect?
Confrontations Flare as Obama’s Traveling Party Reaches China
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/world/asia/obama-xi-staff-shouting-match.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
HANGZHOU, China — Air Force One had a bumpy landing in Hangzhou on Saturday, but it was nothing compared with what happened after the plane rolled to a stop.
As the reporters who traveled to the Group of 20 summit meeting with President Obama from Hawaii piled out and walked under the wing to record his arrival, we were abruptly met by a line of bright blue tape, held taut by security guards. In six years of covering the White House, I had never seen a foreign host prevent the news media from watching Mr. Obama disembark.
When a White House staff member protested to a Chinese security official that this was not normal protocol, the official shouted, “This is our country.”
In another departure from protocol, there was no rolling staircase for Mr. Obama to descend in view of the television cameras. Instead, he emerged from a door in the belly of the plane that he usually uses only on high-security trips, like those to Afghanistan.
Witnessing the scene, Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, looked baffled and annoyed. Joined by her deputy, Benjamin J. Rhodes, she ducked under the rope to make her way closer to the president. The two were immediately stopped by the same Chinese official, who angrily challenged them. Asked later what happened, a diplomatic Ms. Rice replied, “They did things that weren’t anticipated.”
There were further surprises. At the West Lake State House, where Mr. Obama met President Xi Jinping, White House aides, protocol officers and Secret Service agents got into a series of shouting matches over how many Americans should be allowed into the building before Mr. Obama’s arrival. There were fears the confrontation would become physical.
-
https://youtu.be/9Va15ZOUj1A
-
I'd rather our nation be respected than well liked.
Seems we're heading down the road toward "Nether!"
-
Trump's slogan is "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
He obviously feels America is not great for him to make it his slogan and he is right.
Clinton repeats in her rallies, "AMERICA IS ALREADY GREAT!"
Given the overt and covert acts to eliminate/subvert/corrupt the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and electoral process, she is obviously correct in her beliefs, since it is the erosion of the nation's legal structure that those similar to her are working towards to achieve their goals.
China disrespected Obama this week upon his arrival at the G20 Summit. This is pretty harsh treatment for the "most powerful man in the world."
Most already know the world disrespects the US more now than ever, but the media repeats Obama's talking points that international relations are better now that under Bush.
If you like your greatness, you can keep your greatness ..... Maybe he could bow a few more times to show we deserve respect?
The lack of respect and likeness from foreign countries are yet more characteristics of a nation that is no longer viewed as great. For starters, if America wishes to gain respect and admirers abroad, it could start by ending its hegemonic imperial ambitions (e.g., installing and supporting dictators, illegal wars of aggression, putting military bases all over the World, killing of innocent civilians through its drone program, etc.) and begin taking that money to reinvent production-based capitalism back into its borders.
Kuleana
-
I'd rather our nation be respected than well liked.
Seems we're heading down the road toward "Nether!"
The only thing America can claim internationally is that it has become the most feared nation of Earth. Not because of its nuclear might and with the exception of Trump, but because Americans constantly allow their national leaders to be preselected for them before they vote. The ultra-wealthy 1% are the ones who call the shots.
Kuleana
-
The lack of respect and likeness from foreign countries are yet more characteristics of a nation that is no longer viewed as great. For starters, if America wishes to gain respect and admirers abroad, it could start by ending its hegemonic imperial ambitions (e.g., installing and supporting dictators, illegal wars of aggression, putting military bases all over the World, killing of innocent civilians through its drone program, etc.) and begin taking that money to reinvent production-based capitalism back into its borders.
Kuleana
Kuleana,
I agree that the lack of respect towards the us from foreign countries is due to the fact that they no longer view us as the greatest country in the world. This is not the only reason imho. A lot has to do with lack of leadership and changes in policies of the present administration, etc. However, I don't necessarily agree with your assumption that some or all of it is due to "hegemonic imperial ambitions". But I would appreciate some insight from you on this, though. If we had not done all the things you accused the us of doing: "e.g., installing and supporting dictators, illegal wars of aggression, putting military bases all over the World, killing of innocent civilians through its drone program, etc." Then what would become of the us? In other words if we had no friends and allies due to us putting military bases all over the world, how would we defend ourselves against the rest of the world? Our nato allies are basically our allies because we put bases in their countries and pay them to keep them there. Most of them are socialist countries as well. And would probably turn on us the second we stop the money train. I also believe that those countries can just as easily tell us to go to hell and kick our asses out anytime they want to. So we are not forcing them in any way to keep bases in their countries.
Personally, I believe that the only countries that truly believe that we have "hegemonic imperial ambitions" are our enemies. And we should not care what our enemies think of us. Maybe you can name some of the friendly nations to the us that publicly accuse us of all the things you are accusing us of doing? Also, without bases all over the world to go along with our nato allies I personally don't think the us could survive against all the aggressive nations. What do you think of all of what I said?
Not trying to start an argument here. Since we differ so much in philosophy, I would like to hear your take on my opinion.
-
I don't think this is that big an issue. We are complaining that China isn't nice enough to us? Big deal, move on. It's not like we think of China as best of friends either.
There are so many more things at play than to narrow it down to whether China "disrespected" our president. What are we going to do, beat them up to demand they respect us?
China is a rising power and they probably want to be treated as equals instead of feeling like America bosses them around. Thus it doesn't surprise me if they flex their new muscle in ways like this.
-
I don't think this is that big an issue. We are complaining that China isn't nice enough to us? Big deal, move on. It's not like we think of China as best of friends either.
There are so many more things at play than to narrow it down to whether China "disrespected" our president. What are we going to do, beat them up to demand they respect us?
China is a rising power and they probably want to be treated as equals instead of feeling like America bosses them around. Thus it doesn't surprise me if they flex their new muscle in ways like this.
It doesn't surprise me you don't get it.
This is a symptom of a much bigger problem.
I'd tell you what that problem is, but then I'd have to explain it to you.
-
Kuleana,
I agree that the lack of respect towards the us from foreign countries is due to the fact that they no longer view us as the greatest country in the world. This is not the only reason imho. A lot has to do with lack of leadership and changes in policies of the present administration, etc.
I agree totally.
However, I don't necessarily agree with your assumption that some or all of it is due to "hegemonic imperial ambitions". But I would appreciate some insight from you on this, though. If we had not done all the things you accused the us of doing: "e.g., installing and supporting dictators, illegal wars of aggression, putting military bases all over the World, killing of innocent civilians through its drone program, etc." Then what would become of the us?
We would still have our nuclear deterrent, which would ensure no foreign invasion. Plus, we would have a tremendous amount of resources available to rebuild our domestic production capacity, revitalize many depressed communities with infrastructure projects, and more financial assistance for social security, education, healthcare, veterans benefits, etc.
In other words if we had no friends and allies due to us putting military bases all over the world, how would we defend ourselves against the rest of the world?
Defend ourselves from whom is my first question.
My second question is what countries even have the military capacity to invade the US?
Third, knowing the US has the most nuclear weapons in its arsenal, what country is psychotic enough to risk their nation being glassed 1,000 times over by attacking the US?
Our nato allies are basically our allies because we put bases in their countries and pay them to keep them there.
There lies one of the problems I mentioned above. No country friend or foe wants military assets that is not their own located on their territory for any extended period of time. The obvious reason being that their own citizens and property would be destroyed if those US bases were attacked by America's enemies.
Most of them are socialist countries as well.
Then why is America making allies with them if they practice an economic ideology contradictory to the US?
And would probably turn on us the second we stop the money train.
Most of them dislike America right now.
I also believe that those countries can just as easily tell us to go to hell and kick our asses out anytime they want to. So we are not forcing them in any way to keep bases in their countries.
Yes, those countries can and would, IF, their own domestic elections were not influenced by US money, thereby, insuring a pro-US leader each election.
Personally, I believe that the only countries that truly believe that we have "hegemonic imperial ambitions" are our enemies. And we should not care what our enemies think of us. Maybe you can name some of the friendly nations to the us that publicly accuse us of all the things you are accusing us of doing?
Most of the allies of the US have leaders that are pro-US due to what I mentioned above. Nations whose elections were not swayed by US money are almost always the enemy. After the Cold War, Russia was friends with America early on, but became an enemy because the Russians did not vote a pro-US candidate that would allow US corporations continued unfettered access to their economy.
Venezuela was always a friend of the US until America's pro-US candidate lost to Hugo Chavez, who would not allow US exploitation of his countries natural oil reserves to US corporations.
As for friendly nations that despise US presence in their countries, Okinawa comes to mind. Ever since the establishment of permanent US bases on their island, the people of Okinawa has and continually made it clear they want those bases closed.
In the immediate years after the fall of pro-US dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines closed the historically hated Subic Naval and Clark Air Force Base; however, only having them opened again to the US once another pro-US leader came to power despite grass-roots protests.
Finally and most recently, due to the American involvement to illegally overthrow the democratically elected President Erdogan of Turkey for a more pro-US leader, Turkey is currently deciding whether to leave NATO and permanently closing the US bases on its territory.
Also, without bases all over the world to go along with our nato allies I personally don't think the us could survive against all the aggressive nations.
Once again, I must rhetorically ask: why does the US have all these aggressive nations supposedly targeting their hatred to the US? Do you think it may have to do with something the US might have done within those nations?
What do you think of all of what I said?
I think you have valid positions and am grateful for the opportunity to open a discussion on these issues.
Not trying to start an argument here. Since we differ so much in philosophy, I would like to hear your take on my opinion.
My pleasure.
Kuleana
-
It doesn't surprise me you don't get it.
This is a symptom of a much bigger problem.
I'd tell you what that problem is, but then I'd have to explain it to you.
Heaven forbid you have to articulate an actual argument point. But go ahead and take the easy way out by avoiding the topic by insulting someone who disagrees.
And no, it is not that I don't get it, it is that i disagree.
-
Heaven forbid you have to articulate an actual argument point. But go ahead and take the easy way out by avoiding the topic by insulting someone who disagrees.
And no, it is not that I don't get it, it is that i disagree.
You disagree? How atypical!
-
Kuleana,
You keep bringing up the point the US has the most nuclear weapons. That's only a deterrent from being attacked with nukes or other WMDs. The US is not going to escalate tonukes in a conventional or guerrilla-style conflict.
Foreign invasion is not the number one military concern. We protect our allies against THEIR enemies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember a foreign country attacking another foreign country because they were allies with the US. In fact, the enemies of our allies are LESS likely to strike knowing we have a pact to protect the allies and resources already in country to do just that.
There have been terror attacks on US forces overseas, but that happens wherever the US has a presence, not just military forces.
-
"hegemonic" - Learn something new every day. Can't wait to use that on my attorney friend. . . ;D
Lots of good discussion here, well mostly except for people who would question if the Earth is flat or spherical. . .
Anyways, regarding Okinawa and their wanting the U.S. military out. I do work there and yes, a BIG part of the problem is that U.S. service members do stupid things like getting drunk and driving the wrong way down a freeway and killing a woman, gang rape a 13 (or something like that) year old girl, etc. That said, the larger and older part of all of that goes way back into the history of Okinawa and Japan. The Ryukyu Kindgom and the subordination and annexation by Japan. Basically, Okinawans feel they are the redheaded stepchild. I'm probably poorly paraphrasing, but the history and politics behind those issues go way back and the presence of U.S. service members in Okinawa is one smaller part of it, just brought to the forefront in relatively recent history, as in the past 50-60 years.
-
Kuleana,
Thank you for your answers. As I stated before we don't agree on some things, but I am always interested in hearing both sides. I am always willing to change my position based on logic, facts and truth. Unfortunately, where we disagree is mostly a matter of different opinions and the way we look at the world/US as a whole. Nothing wrong with that. Just different. I would like to ask about one thing you stated as fact. And that is that the US has the most nukes. I have been under the impression that this was true at one time but Russia has taken over the title of most nukes. Can you point me to a link or something that shows that the US still has more nukes than Russia?
-
Kuleana,
You keep bringing up the point the US has the most nuclear weapons. That's only a deterrent from being attacked with nukes or other WMDs. The US is not going to escalate tonukes in a conventional or guerrilla-style conflict.
The response I have to the US participating in a conventional or guerrilla-style conflict is why would they be participating in those types of conflicts any way? Let's face it, should the US ever get into a war with a military peer (e.g., Russia, China, or other nuclear armed nations) the exchange of nuclear weapons is a very high probability; hence, none of the afore mentioned nations would let their disagreements lead to a war that will result into mutual annihilation.
All of the conventional wars the US has participated since WWII were political mistakes, bounded by Agreement, or outright illegal.
The Korean and Vietnam War were ideological wars were there were no declaration of war from either the US or North Korea or Vietnam to begin with (Political Mistake).
The military interventions in Grenada and Panama had more to do with America's involvement with the Latin American drug trade than freedom or democracy (Illegal).
Iraq War I was based on a United Nations Resolution (Agreement), while Iraq War II was based on lies and deception (Illegal).
The illegal invasion of Afghanistan was suppose to be a surgical offensive against the CIA created Al-Queda (nation-less), but ended up with an undeclared war with the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Taliban (Illegal).
The recent American involvement in Libya was another illegal invasion of a sovereign government with the attempt to install a pro-US puppet (Illegal).
Finally, the latest enemy, ISIS, is this decade's Al-Queda, which has no country, but is rather conveniently located in countries that the US wants to overthrow and install its own pro-US dictator (Syria).
As you can see in all of the known military actions the US has participated in since WWII, there has never been a non-nuclear armed country that ever declared war with the US. With the exception of the so-called War on Terror, America has never had the need for conventional warfare as it's nuclear deterrent has done its job from dissuading any nuclear and non-nuclear nation from attacking the US.
Foreign invasion is not the number one military concern. We protect our allies against THEIR enemies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember a foreign country attacking another foreign country because they were allies with the US. In fact, the enemies of our allies are LESS likely to strike knowing we have a pact to protect the allies and resources already in country to do just that.
You are correct.
However, is this not the result because of the nuclear weapons the US possessed on its own soil as well as in Europe? America's nuclear deterrent has worked nicely during the Cold War, don't you think?
There have been terror attacks on US forces overseas, but that happens wherever the US has a presence, not just military forces.
There lies the problem. Foreign presence (i.e., military bases, embassies, etc.) abroad that are unpopular will bring with it, attacks from the local population, no different from the attacks that the Roman Empire experienced on their foreign garrisons and consuls. Local populations do not like foreign dignitaries or troops on their soil in the long-term, no matter the official reason.
Kuleana
-
Kuleana,
Thank you for your answers.
Your welcome.
As I stated before we don't agree on some things, but I am always interested in hearing both sides. I am always willing to change my position based on logic, facts and truth. Unfortunately, where we disagree is mostly a matter of different opinions and the way we look at the world/US as a whole. Nothing wrong with that. Just different.
My turn to ask you a question. You say we have a different view of the World and the US. What are these differences?
I would like to ask about one thing you stated as fact. And that is that the US has the most nukes. I have been under the impression that this was true at one time but Russia has taken over the title of most nukes. Can you point me to a link or something that shows that the US still has more nukes than Russia?
I stand corrected.
Russia numerically has more nuclear warheads as of date. Please see (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fact-sheet-who-has-nuclear-weapons-how-many-do-they-n548481) for details.
Kuleana
-
There have been no declarations of war by any UN members since it was created October 24, 1945. Formal declarations of war for all UN member states is illegal. Only the UN Security Council has the legal right to authorize force in response to an aggressor. That's why the war in Korea was called a "police action" and executed under UN supervision.
Vietnam was an attempt to aid the current government there to fight Communist takeover of the country. It began for the US by sending advisers only. When China became involved, the US started becoming operationally involved. We never declared war there partly because we were effectively fighting the Chinese, not N. Vietnam.
As a result of the unprecedented escalation in Vietnam, The War Powers Act of 1973 puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval. Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate. The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days. The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.
-
Kuleana,
Some of our differences are things such as your view about the US having "hegemonic imperial ambitions". I don't agree with your premise. I understand why you believe that. But I don't believe it. I agree that our wars after WWII have been political and illegal. But I don't see us gaining much of anything from any of those wars. I think for the US to have those sort of ambitions we should have been able to profit or gain something from each war. And I don't see where we have. As a matter of fact I see just the opposite.
You wanted to know what enemies we need to defend ourselves from. I believe that the standard Russia/China enemy is always a threat. Combined, not separate. Russia has the technology, China has the manpower. If they ever got together and combined forces we would not stand a chance. As long as they continue to force themselves on our allies we will have to defend them against these agressive nations. North Korea, IMHO is crazy enough to launch a nuke our way. And Iran is crazy enough to send one towards israel. Which would pull us into war with a Russian ally.
But we have already been invaded. By the radical muslims and those who want to do away with our constitution. I see this as a war, just not as conventional as the wars fought by our armed services. We have already been attacked on our shores a few times. Not only by foreign combatants but domestics ones as well.
You want to know why we ally with socialist countries? For strategic bases. As a buffer for defense of our shores. For a buffer along our borders. Look at the list of nato allies. Quite a few are socialist. Many are friendships born during WWI and WWII. Look at the list of our friends that are not nato allies. Not all our friends and nato allies are free countries. We are a stronger nation with all those friends and allies. But that also comes with some of the issues you mentioned. But I don't believe that they dislike America in the same way you believe they dislike america. Yes some of the citizens of those countries espouse the same feelings you stated. We all have our differences. But obviously they have been able to work them out because the alternative might be to have to live under russian or chinese rule. Instead they are their own sovereign nations because we don't rule them.
This is just some of my opinions. I don't have the time type them all. Thanks for enlightening me and anyone else who is reading this.
-
Kuleana,
Some of our differences are things such as your view about the US having "hegemonic imperial ambitions". I don't agree with your premise. I understand why you believe that. But I don't believe it. I agree that our wars after WWII have been political and illegal. But I don't see us gaining much of anything from any of those wars. I think for the US to have those sort of ambitions we should have been able to profit or gain something from each war. And I don't see where we have. As a matter of fact I see just the opposite.
SNIP
What if there were large corporations that stood to benefit from some/all of the wars? Large corporations that have influence. I'm not saying that every conspiracy theory that's out there is true. Honestly, I have no idea and haven't taken the time to delve to far. That said, I think many of those theories (or even accusations) could very well be true.
That said, I also welcome enlightenment on those issues and others. Seems like many here have done a lot of research and/or thought on these topics, and more.
Through my work, China and North Korea are real threats to the region. Maybe not via direct land invasion type stuff, but from starting from smaller neighbor and regional issues and where big brother steps in on many sides. Sort of like the scenarios in the movie War Games. I used to think it would start in the Middle East. It still might, but more and more I look further east (to our west).
-
There have been no declarations of war by any UN members since it was created October 24, 1945. Formal declarations of war for all UN member states is illegal. Only the UN Security Council has the legal right to authorize force in response to an aggressor. That's why the war in Korea was called a "police action" and executed under UN supervision.
Therefore, since most countries in the World are members in the UN, what do the US and other nation states in the 21st century have to fear since any aggressor nations will get a coalition of military forces on their doorstep?
Vietnam was an attempt to aid the current government there to fight Communist takeover of the country. It began for the US by sending advisers only. When China became involved, the US started becoming operationally involved. We never declared war there partly because we were effectively fighting the Chinese, not N. Vietnam.
Proxy wars are very expensive with no clear military objectives and never a good idea with unwarranted consequences.
As a result of the unprecedented escalation in Vietnam, The War Powers Act of 1973 puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval. Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate. The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days. The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.
The War Powers Act of 1973 was a very act of patriotism, since it prevented the Executive Branch from making illegal wars that are not in the best interests of the American people. That is until the day following the attack of September 11, 2001, which the provisions of the Act were pushed to its limits and arguably in violation when President Obama allowed US forces to participate in the illegal overthrow of the Libyan government in 2011.
Kuleana
-
Kuleana,
Some of our differences are things such as your view about the US having "hegemonic imperial ambitions". I don't agree with your premise. I understand why you believe that. But I don't believe it. I agree that our wars after WWII have been political and illegal. But I don't see us gaining much of anything from any of those wars. I think for the US to have those sort of ambitions we should have been able to profit or gain something from each war. And I don't see where we have. As a matter of fact I see just the opposite.
I agree wholeheartedly that all of the military actions undertaken by the US did not have any significant benefit to the US as a whole. However, I would argue that the military industrial complex in the US have been profiting from all of those escapades rather nicely through the years.
You wanted to know what enemies we need to defend ourselves from. I believe that the standard Russia/China enemy is always a threat. Combined, not separate. Russia has the technology, China has the manpower. If they ever got together and combined forces we would not stand a chance. As long as they continue to force themselves on our allies we will have to defend them against these agressive nations. North Korea, IMHO is crazy enough to launch a nuke our way. And Iran is crazy enough to send one towards israel. Which would pull us into war with a Russian ally.
I can see your position that Russia and China can be a formidable threat. However, allow me to offer some consolation in the fact that both of those nations have not invaded any of its neighbors for the last 25 years or so.
As for North Korea, please have the comfort of knowing that their bark is worse than their bite or their nuclear program for that matter, which is laughable.
Iran, well now, rest assured that they will not be foolish enough to attack Israel or any of its neighbors for a matter of fact. Iran, for that matter, has not launched an attack of aggression for the last 200 years. By-the-way, Israel is suspected or has nuclear weapons; hence, they can defend themselves effectively.
But we have already been invaded. By the radical muslims and those who want to do away with our constitution. I see this as a war, just not as conventional as the wars fought by our armed services. We have already been attacked on our shores a few times. Not only by foreign combatants but domestics ones as well.
One of the best ways to deal with fringe radicals is essentially buy them out. I do not agree with that philosophy, but it does work. You don't need to invade every nation and install a US-puppet in the name of eliminating those "terrorists."
You want to know why we ally with socialist countries? For strategic bases. As a buffer for defense of our shores. For a buffer along our borders. Look at the list of nato allies. Quite a few are socialist. Many are friendships born during WWI and WWII. Look at the list of our friends that are not nato allies. Not all our friends and nato allies are free countries. We are a stronger nation with all those friends and allies. But that also comes with some of the issues you mentioned. But I don't believe that they dislike America in the same way you believe they dislike america. Yes some of the citizens of those countries espouse the same feelings you stated. We all have our differences. But obviously they have been able to work them out because the alternative might be to have to live under russian or chinese rule. Instead they are their own sovereign nations because we don't rule them.
I will have to disagree with your notion that if nations do not ally themselves with the US, they will be subject to Russian or Chinese rule. In fact, one could argue that the issue facing all of America's allies is if they don't ally with the US there just might be a color revolution that installs a government that does.
This is just some of my opinions. I don't have the time type them all. Thanks for enlightening me and anyone else who is reading this.
I want to thank you for sharing as I also learned a lot from your perspectives as well.
Kuleana
-
What if there were large corporations that stood to benefit from some/all of the wars? Large corporations that have influence. I'm not saying that every conspiracy theory that's out there is true. Honestly, I have no idea and haven't taken the time to delve to far. That said, I think many of those theories (or even accusations) could very well be true.
In every conspiracy lies a kernel of truth. In the case of the US military industrial complex, that is not a conspiracy as they do profit handsomely in every war America participates.
That said, I also welcome enlightenment on those issues and others. Seems like many here have done a lot of research and/or thought on these topics, and more.
I am sure there are many on this forum that has information on such topics and issues.
Through my work, China and North Korea are real threats to the region. Maybe not via direct land invasion type stuff, but from starting from smaller neighbor and regional issues and where big brother steps in on many sides. Sort of like the scenarios in the movie War Games. I used to think it would start in the Middle East. It still might, but more and more I look further east (to our west).
If WWIII starts in the East, I would definitely not rule out the possibility of other political/financial forces manipulating the situation leading to the conflict.
Kuleana
-
1) In every conspiracy lies a kernel of truth. In the case of the US military industrial complex, that is not a conspiracy as they do profit handsomely in every war America participates.
2) I am sure there are many on this forum that has information on such topics and issues.
3) If WWIII starts in the East, I would definitely not rule out the possibility of other political/financial forces manipulating the situation leading to the conflict.
1) I was more referring to conspiracies on how far/deep the influence goes. There are lots of information offered on the subject, but I have trouble filtering through the various spin, angles, agendas, etc.
3) Roger. Not ruling out anything, abroad or even closer to home. Intelligence/information can only tell you so much. That and there's always many things going on behind the scenes, in the dark, whatever, that people don't see. Generally, it's what you don't see coming that really bites you in the ass.
-
What if there were large corporations that stood to benefit from some/all of the wars? Large corporations that have influence. I'm not saying that every conspiracy theory that's out there is true. Honestly, I have no idea and haven't taken the time to delve to far. That said, I think many of those theories (or even accusations) could very well be true.
That said, I also welcome enlightenment on those issues and others. Seems like many here have done a lot of research and/or thought on these topics, and more.
Through my work, China and North Korea are real threats to the region. Maybe not via direct land invasion type stuff, but from starting from smaller neighbor and regional issues and where big brother steps in on many sides. Sort of like the scenarios in the movie War Games. I used to think it would start in the Middle East. It still might, but more and more I look further east (to our west).
I have no doubt that many corporations are profiting from any engagement/war we are in. I would be a fool to think otherwise. And when those corps profit, I am sure a certain ugly, white, fat, racist, crooked female presidential candidate is enriched from their profits. Oh sorry, I meant to say her foundation is enriched. :rofl:
What I was trying to say, and obviously I didn't do a good job of it, was saying "us" as in the U.S. Government. I don't see how the U.S. Government (or the people as a whole) have benefited much from these wars directly if we have "hegemonic imperial ambitions".
I agree that China and NK are prime candidates for an engagement with us. But with Putin's taking over the Crimea and the Ukraine next on his list I believe that Russia is raising its ugly head once again as a threat to us. I think the most likely scenario will be the middle east centered around Iran IMO. Maybe I am not looking at the bigger picture. Obviously, no one can predict what will happen, if anything. But I do know that a strong leader POTUS will be the biggest deterrent to any war/engagement. I believe the reason Russia and China are encroaching in to areas that don't belong to them is that our leader is weak and they know he won't lift a hand to stop them.
-
What I was trying to say, and obviously I didn't do a good job of it, was saying "us" as in the U.S. Government. I don't see how the U.S. Government (or the people as a whole) have benefited much from these wars directly if we have "hegemonic imperial ambitions".
The geopolitical situation with the US today was no different from empires from the past. No one would argue that Rome, Mongol, or British Empire had hegemonic imperial ambitions and in each case did not provide a direct benefit to the common people of those regimes. As always the case, it is the elite or 1% of those empires that benefited from the nations they colonized and/or enslaved, while the poor in those societies received marginal improvements in their daily lives at best.
I agree that China and NK are prime candidates for an engagement with us.
I concur, but I do not think they will fire the first shot.
But with Putin's taking over the Crimea and the Ukraine next on his list I believe that Russia is raising its ugly head once again as a threat to us
With all due respect, the Crimean people voted in a referendum to secede from the Ukraine and then join the Russian Federation as granted by the UN Charter covering self-determination.
I think the most likely scenario will be the middle east centered around Iran IMO.
If it happens in the Middle East, like America's illegal involvement in Syria, it will be the US doing the attacking, not Iran.
Maybe I am not looking at the bigger picture. Obviously, no one can predict what will happen, if anything. But I do know that a strong leader POTUS will be the biggest deterrent to any war/engagement.
That is indeed necessary, but a more aware and critical-thinking citizen populace that exercises their opposition to global wars would be a stronger deterrent to the powers that be that push for such conflicts.
I believe the reason Russia and China are encroaching in to areas that don't belong to them is that our leader is weak and they know he won't lift a hand to stop them.
If both of those countries actions are seen as encroaching to their neighbors, it is entirely due to America's military aggressiveness to both those nations. Surely, you are well aware of America's forward operating bases that surround Russia and China. The US has bases that houses bombers that could strike the capitals of both nations in minutes. Russia and China has no such bases with bomber capability towards the US. If this is indeed the military situation, it is the US that is militarily encroaching both nations and not vice-versa.
Respectfully,
Kuleana
-
The reason for this forward bases is to ensure mutually assured destruction in the event of an aggressor decided to utilize nuclear weapons. Offensive defense.
If we did not have a powerful military to deter aggression the world would be a far worse place. As we see the slip today, a direct result on weak foreign policy, military reduction, and apology.
-
I have no doubt that many corporations are profiting from any engagement/war we are in. I would be a fool to think otherwise. And when those corps profit, I am sure a certain ugly, white, fat, racist, crooked female presidential candidate is enriched from their profits. Oh sorry, I meant to say her foundation is enriched. :rofl:
What I was trying to say, and obviously I didn't do a good job of it, was saying "us" as in the U.S. Government. I don't see how the U.S. Government (or the people as a whole) have benefited much from these wars directly if we have "hegemonic imperial ambitions".
I agree that China and NK are prime candidates for an engagement with us. But with Putin's taking over the Crimea and the Ukraine next on his list I believe that Russia is raising its ugly head once again as a threat to us. I think the most likely scenario will be the middle east centered around Iran IMO. Maybe I am not looking at the bigger picture. Obviously, no one can predict what will happen, if anything. But I do know that a strong leader POTUS will be the biggest deterrent to any war/engagement. I believe the reason Russia and China are encroaching in to areas that don't belong to them is that our leader is weak and they know he won't lift a hand to stop them.
Well, good thing I already ate my breakfast before reading that. Hopefully it stays down. ;D
-
1) I concur, but I do not think they will fire the first shot.
2) If both of those countries actions are seen as encroaching to their neighbors, it is entirely due to America's military aggressiveness to both those nations. Surely, you are well aware of America's forward operating bases that surround Russia and China. The US has bases that houses bombers that could strike the capitals of both nations in minutes. Russia and China has no such bases with bomber capability towards the US. If this is indeed the military situation, it is the US that is militarily encroaching both nations and not vice-versa.
1) I don't see that either. I see both/either being more like that punk who wants to start something, so will go up to another and sort of feint a blow, trying to get the other to strike back. Then say, see, he swung first. . .
2) They have definite capability towards US interests. And I wouldn't discount their capabilities toward the US mainland. They may not fire the first shot, but the Chinese (and NK) are growing by leaps and bounds.
-
The reason for this forward bases is to ensure mutually assured destruction in the event of an aggressor decided to utilize nuclear weapons. Offensive defense.
What if the aggressor is the US?
There is no guarantee the US would not use the tactical advantage of forward military bases to launch a war of aggression under false pretenses (i.e., Iraq War II) .
If we did not have a powerful military to deter aggression the world would be a far worse place. As we see the slip today, a direct result on weak foreign policy, military reduction, and apology.
Although other nations have been narrowing the gap, the US still has the most powerful military in the World in both relative and absolute terms. If the US spends more on its military than all other nations combined, I fail to see how America be slipping militarily. Moreover, any nation having the most powerful military has only proved that it will be only that nation that will be illegally invading and making war on the militarily weaker nations in the World.
Kuleana
-
1) I don't see that either. I see both/either being more like that punk who wants to start something, so will go up to another and sort of feint a blow, trying to get the other to strike back. Then say, see, he swung first. . .
America does and have used the same tactics in its history.
The goading of Japan to attack Pearl Harbor that led to America's entry to WWII was one example which President Roosevelt utilized to get America involved in WWII.
Please see http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/12/05/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/ for details.
2) They have definite capability towards US interests. And I wouldn't discount their capabilities toward the US mainland. They may not fire the first shot, but the Chinese (and NK) are growing by leaps and bounds.
They have done so because of America's foreign policy as laid by such policies as the Project for the New American Century that seeks to imperially subjugate the World to US domination.
Kuleana
-
Well, good thing I already ate my breakfast before reading that. Hopefully it stays down. ;D
You and your breakfast are lucky I didn't provide a picture! :rofl:
Well, maybe just one.
Or two.
-
America does and have used the same tactics in its history.
The goading of Japan to attack Pearl Harbor that led to America's entry to WWII was one example which President Roosevelt utilized to get America involved in WWII.
Please see http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/12/05/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/ for details.
Yeah, I've read/heard about that story/theory regarding Pearl Harbor, among others. Frankly, some are interesting, but many are exhausting to read, convoluted, etc and end up giving me a headache. :(
-
You and your breakfast are lucky I didn't provide a picture! :rofl:
Well, maybe just one.
Or two.
You sicko!
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/066/649/9b4.gif)
;D
-
Yeah, I've read/heard about that story/theory regarding Pearl Harbor, among others. Frankly, some are interesting, but many are exhausting to read, convoluted, etc and end up giving me a headache. :(
This is because you are a true American patriot that does not like it when, for example, the powers-that-be lie to its populace and get them to go along with a war or military intervention that benefits their political or financial agenda at that particular time at the expense of the taking of domestic and foreign lives.
Kuleana
-
The one thing Kuleana has illustrated, if not his ability to type and an enormous amount of time to spend online :D , is how perspective, prejudice and subjective opinions differ among people talking global politics.
The Chinese obviously had some motive or agenda for doing what they did. Was it a parting shot knowing he's leaving office? Have they been holding back for over 7 years to avoid repercussions? Do they see Hillary has no chance to win and want to ingratiate themselves to Trump?
Whatever their reasons, it's pretty obvious they purposely disrespected our President. Maybe it's a hint to the next President they will have their work cut out for them if they want less stressful relations between our countries.
We only know what our complicit media tells us about Obama and whatever deals he tells them about. We have no idea what friction might have been created if he treats other leaders like he treats our Congress with his "my way or the highway" version of "compromise."
It'll be interesting if the next President offers a more transparent look at what's happening behind the scenes whether or not that information melds with their public narrative (i.e. Benghazi).
-
The one thing Kuleana has illustrated, if not his ability to type and an enormous amount of time to spend online :D , is how perspective, prejudice and subjective opinions differ among people talking global politics.
It has been very slow for me in the last few days.
The Chinese obviously had some motive or agenda for doing what they did. Was it a parting shot knowing he's leaving office? Have they been holding back for over 7 years to avoid repercussions? Do they see Hillary has no chance to win and want to ingratiate themselves to Trump?
Most definitely a combination of those things.
Whatever their reasons, it's pretty obvious they purposely disrespected our President. Maybe it's a hint to the next President they will have their work cut out for them if they want less stressful relations between our countries.
In foreign affairs, every move is calculated and in-response to something that occurred prior, good or bad.
We only know what our complicit media tells us about Obama and whatever deals he tells them about. We have no idea what friction might have been created if he treats other leaders like he treats our Congress with his "my way or the highway" version of "compromise."
Exactly.
This is why it is the responsibility of all citizens to keep themselves of what our so-called elected leaders are doing upfront, but more importantly behind-the-scenes.
It'll be interesting if the next President offers a more transparent look at what's happening behind the scenes whether or not that information melds with their public narrative (i.e. Benghazi).
If Trump wins, we will probably get a media circus daily, but more transparency on what decisions are being made domestically and internationally than what we have experienced since the last century. :geekdanc:
If the Clinton gang gets forced down America's throat by the "Power Elite", then be ready for the death-nell of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Electoral Process, as the US as we knew it, will definitely no longer exist. :'(
Kuleana
-
You disagree? How atypical!
And what? I'm not allowed to disagree with you?
You are the one whining about it. :stopjack:
-
And what? I'm not allowed to disagree with you?
You are the one whining about it. :stopjack:
Typical behavior. Throw out an attack and immediately pretend you are not the one hijacking the thread by posting the Stop-Jack!
Your trolling really gets old.
-
Typical behavior. Throw out an attack and immediately pretend you are not the one hijacking the thread by posting the Stop-Jack!
Your trolling really gets old.
I posted my own thought on the topic. I didn't attack you or anyone else. The only thing I am guilty of is having a different opinion. You are the one who started debating like a little kid by insulting me for no reason. I tried to return to topic but you cannot let it go can you? Is this how you get your jollies? Nevermind, I don't want to know the answer. :stopjack:
-
I posted my own thought on the topic. I didn't attack you or anyone else. The only thing I am guilty of is having a different opinion. You are the one who started debating like a little kid by insulting me for no reason. I tried to return to topic but you cannot let it go can you? Is this how you get your jollies? Nevermind, I don't want to know the answer. :stopjack:
You're transparently pathetic when you start these flame wars.
You're not dragging me into another one.
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
-
Enough. Both have had your say.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/fuWVqIv.jpg)
-
One thing we need to not forget as Hillary and her ilk bash Trump as admiring Putin ..... Putin supports the legitimate regime of Assad while Obama and Clinton armed and helped create ISIS from the opposition rebels in Syria.
Yeah, I think Trump sees an enemy of our enemy ....
Incident in Hangzhou
No surprise. China’s ostentatious rudeness was perfectly reflective of the world’s general disdain for Obama. His high-minded lectures about global norms and demands that others live up to their “international obligations” are no longer amusing. They’re irritating.
Foreign leaders have reciprocated by taking this administration down a notch knowing they pay no price. In May 2013, Vladimir Putin reportedly kept the U.S. secretary of state cooling his heels for three hours outside his office before deigning to receive him. Even as Obama was hailing the nuclear deal with Iran as a great breakthrough, the ayatollah vowed “no change” in his policy, which remained diametrically opposed to “U.S. arrogant system.” The mullahs followed by openly conducting illegal ballistic missile tests — calculating, correctly, that Obama would do nothing. And when Iran took prisoner 10 American sailors in the Persian Gulf, made them kneel and broadcast the video, what was the U.S. response? Upon their release, John Kerry publicly thanked Iran for its good conduct.
Why should Xi treat Obama with any greater deference? Beijing illegally expands into the South China Sea, meeting only the most perfunctory pushback from the U.S. Obama told CNN that he warned Xi to desist or “there will be consequences.” Is there a threat less credible?
Putin annexes Crimea and Obama crows about the isolation he has imposed on Russia. Look around. Moscow has become Grand Central Station for Middle East leaders seeking outside help in their various conflicts. As for Ukraine, both the French president and the German chancellor have hastened to Moscow to plead with Putin to make peace. Some isolation.
Iran regularly harasses our vessels in the Persian Gulf. Russian fighters buzzed a U.S. destroyer in the Baltic Sea. And just Wednesday, a Russian fighter flew within 10 feet of an American military jet. The price they paid? Being admonished that such provocations are unsafe and unprofessional. An OSHA citation is more ominous.
Add to that American acquiescence not just to ransoming hostages held by Iran, but to delivering the loot by unmarked plane filled with stacks of cold (untraceable) cash, like a desert drug deal. Why the stealth? Obviously to conceal the manner of the transaction from Congress and the American public. Some humiliations are so grotesque that even the Obama team can’t miss it.
Now the latest. At the G-20, Obama said he spoke to Putin about cyberwarfare, amid revelations that Russian hackers have been interfering in our political campaigns. We are more technologically advanced, both offensively and defensively, in this arena than any of our adversaries, said Obama, but we really don’t want another Cold War-style arms race.
Instead, we must all adhere to norms of international behavior.
It makes you want to weep. This KGB thug adhering to norms? He invades Ukraine, annexes Crimea, bombs hospitals in Aleppo — and we expect him to observe cyber-code etiquette? Rather than exploit our technological lead — with countermeasures and deterrent threats — to ensure our own cyber-safety?
We’re back to 1929 when Secretary of State Henry Stimson shut down a U.S. code-breaking operation after it gave him decoded Japanese telegrams. He famously explained that “gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.”
Well, comrade, Putin is no gentleman. And he’s reading our mail.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/incident-in-hangzhou/2016/09/08/c1da28f4-75f2-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html?utm_term=.77b99cecc73d
-
Incident in Hangzhou
This author's commentary in the Washington Post wreaks with American imperialist propaganda and obvious Russia/China bashing.
No surprise. China’s ostentatious rudeness was perfectly reflective of the world’s general disdain for Obama. His high-minded lectures about global norms and demands that others live up to their “international obligations” are no longer amusing. They’re irritating.
The World does not have a disdain for President Obama, they have a disdain for America's imperialist actions in the World that has left thousands killed and whole nations in chaos or on the verge of collapse (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.).
Foreign leaders have reciprocated by taking this administration down a notch knowing they pay no price. In May 2013, Vladimir Putin reportedly kept the U.S. secretary of state cooling his heels for three hours outside his office before deigning to receive him. Even as Obama was hailing the nuclear deal with Iran as a great breakthrough, the ayatollah vowed “no change” in his policy, which remained diametrically opposed to “U.S. arrogant system.” The mullahs followed by openly conducting illegal ballistic missile tests — calculating, correctly, that Obama would do nothing. And when Iran took prisoner 10 American sailors in the Persian Gulf, made them kneel and broadcast the video, what was the U.S. response? Upon their release, John Kerry publicly thanked Iran for its good conduct.
There is no agreement between Iran, the UN, or the US that prevents Iran from doing defensive ballistic missile tests. Furthermore, this author forgets to mention that these US Naval sailors were illegally in Iranian waters. It is doubtful that those sailors entered Iranian waters accidentally. Sorry, I don't think those sailors got lost fishing. More likely, those men were probably on a spy mission and got caught.
Why should Xi treat Obama with any greater deference? Beijing illegally expands into the South China Sea, meeting only the most perfunctory pushback from the U.S. Obama told CNN that he warned Xi to desist or “there will be consequences.” Is there a threat less credible?
As of date, there has been no official ruling by the UN or the Hague Court of Arbitration that deemed China's activity in the South CHINA Sea as illegal.
Putin annexes Crimea and Obama crows about the isolation he has imposed on Russia. Look around. Moscow has become Grand Central Station for Middle East leaders seeking outside help in their various conflicts. As for Ukraine, both the French president and the German chancellor have hastened to Moscow to plead with Putin to make peace. Some isolation.
Russia did not annex Crimea, Crimea joined the Russian Federation.
The fact nations in the Middle East and nations from Europe seek council with President Putin is because he is acting like a true statesman. Russia is utilizing diplomacy to solve today's global crises, while it is the US, who is resorting to Big Stick Violence (e.g., arming ISIS in Syria, invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.).
Iran regularly harasses our vessels in the Persian Gulf.
Only when they get too close to Iran's territory.
Russian fighters buzzed a U.S. destroyer in the Baltic Sea. And just Wednesday, a Russian fighter flew within 10 feet of an American military jet. The price they paid? Being admonished that such provocations are unsafe and unprofessional. An OSHA citation is more ominous.
The US has no business being in the Baltic Sea and in Russia's backyard for that matter other than to provoke Russia. How would the US feel if Russian aircraft carriers sailed in the Gulf of Mexico and got too close to Florida, Georgia, or Texas?
Add to that American acquiescence not just to ransoming hostages held by Iran, but to delivering the loot by unmarked plane filled with stacks of cold (untraceable) cash, like a desert drug deal. Why the stealth? Obviously to conceal the manner of the transaction from Congress and the American public. Some humiliations are so grotesque that even the Obama team can’t miss it.
I could be wrong, but I believe a lot of that money is actually Iranian money that was to be returned to Iran as per the stipulations of the Iran Deal.
Now the latest. At the G-20, Obama said he spoke to Putin about cyberwarfare, amid revelations that Russian hackers have been interfering in our political campaigns. We are more technologically advanced, both offensively and defensively, in this arena than any of our adversaries, said Obama, but we really don’t want another Cold War-style arms race.
I think this author has bad eyesight. If any party is meddling with the US Presidential electoral process, it is not coming internationally, but domestically. Just ask Bernie Sanders supporters whether they feel robbed by the Clinton Gang via election fraud and corruption.
Instead, we must all adhere to norms of international behavior.
It makes you want to weep. This KGB thug adhering to norms? He invades Ukraine, annexes Crimea, bombs hospitals in Aleppo — and we expect him to observe cyber-code etiquette? Rather than exploit our technological lead — with countermeasures and deterrent threats — to ensure our own cyber-safety?
Talk about spinning the truth. Russia has not invaded any country. Crimea elected to join the Russian Federation. Those responsible for bombing of the hospital in Aleppo is still officially unknown, while it has been confirmed that the US did bomb a hospital in Afghanistan.
We’re back to 1929 when Secretary of State Henry Stimson shut down a U.S. code-breaking operation after it gave him decoded Japanese telegrams. He famously explained that “gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.”
This might have been American foreign policy in 1929, but in 1939 the US began working on breaking Imperial Japan's version of the Enigma Encryption Machine, two years before any declaration of war between both countries.
Well, comrade, Putin is no gentleman. And he’s reading our mail.
If Russia is reading our mail, they are reading yesterday's news because America's NSA has beaten them to it.
Kuleana
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/incident-in-hangzhou/2016/09/08/c1da28f4-75f2-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html?utm_term=.77b99cecc73d
-
One thing we need to not forget as Hillary and her ilk bash Trump as admiring Putin ..... Putin supports the legitimate regime of Assad while Obama and Clinton armed and helped create ISIS from the opposition rebels in Syria.
Yeah, I think Trump sees an enemy of our enemy ....
Interesting how, right after I posted this, the news tonight reported the US and Russia are working together to stop the civil war in Syria. A cease fire is expected by Monday while the details are hammered out.
Well, well, well :D