Will we get out of Iraq?

[Rekuja]

only way you will "get out of iraq" is if barack or ron paul are elected.. but knowing americans they wont vote for a black ex-muslim that used to take drugs as a teen and has a name dangerously close to osama..

well the rednecks wont anyway...

if clinton wins, it'll be the end of the world.

[Dr Mario]

only way you will "get out of iraq" is if barack or ron paul are elected.. but knowing americans they wont vote for a black ex-muslim that used to take drugs as a teen and has a name dangerously close to osama..

well the rednecks wont anyway...

if clinton wins, it'll be the end of the world.

You probably wouldn't see the troops withdrawn even if Obama or Paul won. The underlying disaffection hasn't seeped into enough of the population yet, so anyone proposing an actual withdrawal would be handing their enemies a dream smear campaign.

[Jetsetlemming]

Neither are horses, I never knew that, just thought I'd point it out.

This is commonly seen as the one single good reason the europeans were more technologically advanced than the natives when they arrived. The native americans pound for pound were just as brilliant as the europeans as far as nature and science go. They just never had that neato beast of burden to push along the development of physical technologies. There were some fucking genius native americans pre-europe, though. They had just as advanced astronomy as the europeans, and had practiced burning forests to encourage new-growth woodlands, which were favored by the deer and game animals they thrived on, and the growth of the plants and herbs they used for food and medicine. Farming on a huge scale.
As far as "running around in a piece of cloth shooting at pigs" as you can fucking get.

[Mistral]

Um technicaly you fail. I proved horses were native to america, which they are. Dipshit didnt say WHICH speices of horse, he said that horses arent native.

By your mind set, the Dodo is no longer a native animal of the Mauritius Islands, becuase its extinct.

So give me my gold star.

Ah, there you go. I didn't bother with him at all; I just noticed that you used the definition of indigeneous. One gold star, coming up.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Eventually we'll have to leave, and it could be caused by one of two things. Either the war loses so much support in the congress that they'll pull the troops out or we'll go bankrupt. Whichever happens first. Or we could declare victory and leave like we did in Vietnam. Either way, hopefully this war has taught the American people that you can't export your way of life (Democracy etc.) to a nation that doesn't have the climate for it (and I'm not talking about the weather). All you will do is waste your time, money, and lives as you have seen in this war. The Pre-emptive war philosophy that GWB has adopted is one of the worst philosophies any nation can adhere to. Essentially it gives them a free pass to do whatever the hell they want, so long as they tell the public that said enemy is dangerous and hates America.
For Example, Iran may or may not have nukes. Pakistan does have nukes, India does have nukes, Israel has nukes, China has nukes, yet we don't care and we won't do anything. Why may you ask...well it's simple, because they have nuclear weapons! That is a hell of an inscentive to get nuclear weapons. Get them and the US will leave you alone. I'd want nukes if I was Iran too. Iran doesn't have an air force or navy to speak of and their army would be destroyed very quickly by us, so in reality they pose no real threat. Yet some people still push for war with Iran even after this horrible war with Iraq.
Democrats could have stopped this thing by now, yet they are a bunch of pussies. Only they could have screwed up the chance they had and they did it.
This policy of nation building that was started by Woodrow Wilson and carried out by both Clinton and GWB, is the definition of what Imperialism is. Until this flawed policy is put to rest, we will always be at war at least once a decade with periods of rest in between. Let's look at examples now.
What is the only justified war that we have had? WWII. We were attacked by Japan. Which one's did we go into that were unneccessary (at least for us to be involved in): Spanish American War, Philippine American War, World War I, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraq War. But hey, 1 out of 8 isn't bad is it?
The vast majority of Dems have never been anti-war, which is why I suppose I don't understand how the Dems are viewed as the anti-war party. Republicans used to be the anti-war party, especially "real" conservative republicans. Unfortunetly for this country, there aren't many "real" conservative republicans anymore. All we have is GWB, Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson. All of those men are tools of the neo-con, want to control the world agenda. Empires are destined to fall. They never last very long. It's only a matter of time before we go bankrupt, I just hope that things are changed before we get to that point. Neo-cons are the fake conservatives and I will never support one ever again. Real conservatives need to take back the party.....the real anti-war, pro-constitution, pro-liberty (both social and economic) people, which used to be the Republicans. If they fail to do so, then you will see the Republican party die, and some other party will raise from the ashes.
It has to happen soon though, because the monetary system that we are on right now has no solid ground to stand on because it is fiat money, and thus is not backed by anything. It used to backed by gold. If we don't go back to that system and rack up the national debt like we are doing, are money isn't going to be worth much anymore and you will see out of control inflation. A fiat currency doesn't last....want proof? Do you remember the old fiat currency of the United States called the Continental? Yeah, neither does anyone else, and the dollar will go the same way eventually.
All these issues are inter-related. We need to lots of money to pay for our uber-aggressive nation building foreign policy and our welfare state. With the dollars increasingly going down in value due to our national debt and lack of backing by anything, those things get harder and harder to fund and eventually, the center won't hold anymore.
Don't fall into the old Republican versus Democrat trick. If you look at the issues, they actually only differ on a few issues. Vote for the person not the party.

[Mistral]

~TEXTSNIP~

Oh...gods...I have the sudden urge to bang my head on the nearest wall all of a sudden.

Wars: You forgot to mention War of Independence (possibly justified), 1812 (unjustified), the punitive expeditions against the Barbary Pirates (justified), the Mexican-American War (completely unjustified), and a little thing called the American Civil War (justified). A lot of those happened well before Woodrow Wilson, and besides that, whatever other sins I've heard him accused of (racism, unbridled idealism), I do not believe I've heard him accused of empire-building. Heck, his ideas formed the basis for the League of Nations (absolutely hated by isolationists and American hegemonists) and he tried to ensure self-sovereignity for the ethnic groups of Central and Eastern Europe, and he managed to avoid entering WW1 for three years until Germany tried to gain Mexican support for war with America and declared unrestricted submarine warfare.

Something occurs to me, though, with the reason you gave for WW2 being justified. If Hitler had not declared war on America concurrently with Japan, would WW2's European front have still been justified? For that matter, Japan largely declared war on America because of the oil embargo that was choking them and interfering with their own foreign policies (i.e. beat up China).

Ideology: Whatever you may say, neo-conservatives are still conservatives. Reactionary conservatives, but conservatives nonetheless. I also disagree with your take on a couple of the people you listed, and I certainly disagree that there's a conspiracy to seize the reins of global power. Of course, I suppose it depends on whether you mean economic laissez-faire conservatives or social conservatives, considering the Republican Party combines the two. Most of what you want is economic conservatism, while neo-conservatives are largely social. Meh, whatever, it doesn't change that either of the two is just as real as the other.

Gold Standard: To quote Keynes, "Money doesn't matter." Quite literally no nation uses the gold or silver standards anymore. The major Keynesian arguments against it are that deflationary forces caused by a fixed standard reduces economic fluidity and intensifies recession. Most economists realize just how problematic the gold standard was, and aside from a handful, most who study the situation do not want something like it to happen. On top of the reasons that gold standards can be a bad idea, there's the expense and difficulty of transition. Gold prices are high, right now, and that makes it very difficult to set the backing. Besides which, a lot of currency would have to be taken out of circulation, which will boost the value of the currency left to compensate, lead to serious deflation, and...bankruptcy of a lot of companies that depend on the dollar to purchase their goods.

The American "welfare state": I'm sorry, but this just made me laugh. That is all.

[Strongbad]

The American "welfare state": I'm sorry, but this just made me laugh. That is all.

Welfare is a pretty big deal. Everyone is on welfare these days. That shit is out of control.

[Dr Mario]

Welfare is a pretty big deal. Everyone is on welfare these days. That shit is out of control.

The US welfare system is significantly lighter on payouts than the systems found in pretty much every other westernised nation, and usage rates are rather close. It's inefficient yeah, but it's not quite the deal people play it up us.

[Elmdor Rizer]

I'm gonna take out all my money from my various accounts, and then apply for welfare for a month or two/until I get a job.

Oh, and I don't have to pay hospital bills and silly things like that either.

[Strongbad]

The US welfare system is significantly lighter on payouts than the systems found in pretty much every other westernised nation, and usage rates are rather close. It's not quite the deal people play it up us.

Yeah, it really is a big deal. Why does the Government need to take money from me so some slacker can buy some Mountain Dew? Sure there are a some people that need the money to help feed there kids and what not, but there has got to be a better way to take care of these kids. Then again we can't use tax money to create decent parents. When I see someone buy more than $150 of food with food stamps and then drive off in a Escalade with 22" rims it pisses me off.

[Paladin_Hammer]

The longer we stay, the more money my associates make. We care not for your tears, only the dollar. So we, the NWO, say you shall stay in Iraq. Forever.

[Evans]

Yeah, it really is a big deal. Why does the Government need to take money from me so some slacker can buy some Mountain Dew? Sure there are a some people that need the money to help feed there kids and what not, but there has got to be a better way to take care of these kids. Then again we can't use tax money to create decent parents. When I see someone buy more than $150 of food with food stamps and then drive off in a Escalade with 22" rims it pisses me off.

You think it's bad? Come live in Quebec and see half of your income be taken away just so you can pay for everyone else.

Then we'll talk.

[Strongbad]

You think it's bad? Come live in Quebec and see half of your income be taken away just so you can pay for everyone else.

Then we'll talk.

I never said we have the worst system, I just don't like it. That is pretty fucked up though.

[Sting]

I don't think that the US is getting out of Iraq any time soon. I mean, they want that oil.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Oh...gods...I have the sudden urge to bang my head on the nearest wall all of a sudden.

Wars: You forgot to mention War of Independence (possibly justified), 1812 (unjustified), the punitive expeditions against the Barbary Pirates (justified), the Mexican-American War (completely unjustified), and a little thing called the American Civil War (justified). A lot of those happened well before Woodrow Wilson, and besides that, whatever other sins I've heard him accused of (racism, unbridled idealism), I do not believe I've heard him accused of empire-building. Heck, his ideas formed the basis for the League of Nations (absolutely hated by isolationists and American hegemonists) and he tried to ensure self-sovereignity for the ethnic groups of Central and Eastern Europe, and he managed to avoid entering WW1 for three years until Germany tried to gain Mexican support for war with America and declared unrestricted submarine warfare.

Something occurs to me, though, with the reason you gave for WW2 being justified. If Hitler had not declared war on America concurrently with Japan, would WW2's European front have still been justified? For that matter, Japan largely declared war on America because of the oil embargo that was choking them and interfering with their own foreign policies (i.e. beat up China).

Ideology: Whatever you may say, neo-conservatives are still conservatives. Reactionary conservatives, but conservatives nonetheless. I also disagree with your take on a couple of the people you listed, and I certainly disagree that there's a conspiracy to seize the reins of global power. Of course, I suppose it depends on whether you mean economic laissez-faire conservatives or social conservatives, considering the Republican Party combines the two. Most of what you want is economic conservatism, while neo-conservatives are largely social. Meh, whatever, it doesn't change that either of the two is just as real as the other.

Gold Standard: To quote Keynes, "Money doesn't matter." Quite literally no nation uses the gold or silver standards anymore. The major Keynesian arguments against it are that deflationary forces caused by a fixed standard reduces economic fluidity and intensifies recession. Most economists realize just how problematic the gold standard was, and aside from a handful, most who study the situation do not want something like it to happen. On top of the reasons that gold standards can be a bad idea, there's the expense and difficulty of transition. Gold prices are high, right now, and that makes it very difficult to set the backing. Besides which, a lot of currency would have to be taken out of circulation, which will boost the value of the currency left to compensate, lead to serious deflation, and...bankruptcy of a lot of companies that depend on the dollar to purchase their goods.

The American "welfare state": I'm sorry, but this just made me laugh. That is all.

I know I didn't list all the wars in the US because I just wanted to list the big ones, minus the civil war because it has nothing to do with foreign policy.
Wilson wanted self-determination for some nations and not others....he wanted it for eastern europe but not asian countries like Vietnam (Read how Ho Chi Mihn tried but was ignored by Wilson). Wilson gave the ideology to people who would go on to empire build. "To make the world safe for Democracy."

Japan attacked us, that is why WWII was justified. Hitler declared war on us, thus the European front was justified.

I never said a return to the gold standard would be easy, and its not something you can do overnight, but your dollar right now is only a piece of paper, and has no real value. The only reason people assign worth to it, is because it was worth something yesterday, and the day before, so hopefully it will be worth something tomorrow. But in a global economy, fiat money systems aren't a good idea, and flooding the market with new bills to pay off war and welfare debts to China and Saudi Arabia (which the US does) inflates the prices dramatically and hurts the poorer classes of America the most. It doesn't have to be gold necessarily, but it needs to be something of some value (most likely a precious metal).

If you don't believe the US is becoming a welfare state, you either don't live here, never been here, or live only in the wilderness like Davy Crockett. Just the other day at Walmart, the lady in front of me payed for her food with food stamps, then payed over 70 bucks in cash for smokes. This is not an isolated incident. Welfare creates "takers". The government is responsible for this, and instead of letting family, friends, churches, and charities take care of people the government has stepped in. We can't sustain this kind of society forever and it is only going to get bigger if the people continue to do nothing.

Finally, Neo-cons are for more government, more spending on both wars and social programs (welfare), and are only socially conservative to appease the Christian masses who are largely clueless on everything else. They vote on one issue, abortion. These are the same people that largely support the War in Iraq. I don't understand it....it makes no sense. Neo-cons sound more like Democrats than what conservates were. Is conservatism dead? There are very few left in congress, so in a sense yeah they are almost extinct, but don't call Neo-cons conservatives (I know it is in their name, but they are conservative in name only and do not act as such).

I went way off topic. Oh well, now I remember why I don't post responses in political topics. Because no one can hold a candle to my political knowledge, lack of partisanship, and historical understanding.