Originally Posted by Divine
The US's national debt is 18 trillion yes, but their revenue is 6 trillion making it a 1/3 fraction which is pretty small and not a huge overload of debt like you're trying to make it out to be. I'd also advise you to check out this site which shows the debt of countries all over the world compared to the us. They might not be as much in debt as you think, bud.
Do you know how many 0's a trillion has ?
We're not talking about other countries and it's irrelevant, the thread is about the USA, probably because their military presence in those countries is redundant and in the center of the conflicts. Tho, we did mention a few other western countries because the USA isn't the only country in that position and taking advantage of the complicated geopolitic situation of the middle-east, indeed.
Still they have a debt they'll never be able to repay, the american people suffer the consequences of a ruthless and uncontrolled financial system while the government spends trillions on the US army in order to control ressources in a region they (and other western countries) fucked up.
Originally Posted by Divine
Next you just go on the make assumptions without having any real arguments. If were at war against a terrorist group or defending an ally were going to station troops in those places. Yes we may take advantage of the national resources and that may persuade us to go over there, but were going to station troops where were defending allies or at war, its not that difficult of a concept.
How is making a shit tone of money when you control large amount of ressources an assumption ?
And that's where you miss the point I think : they do not "defend their allies" and "ho look, some oil, maybe we could take a little" ; those countries are their "allied" precisely because there are a shitload of natural ressources in that area, ressources that USA don't have. They WANT those ressources. That's why they make allies and use pretexts to occupy the region.
Originally Posted by Divine
The government uses terrorism as a strawman? Do you really even know what a strawman is? Terrorism isnt a fucking argument, that can be set up. Them literally coming over to us and openly physically attacking us isnt a fucking argument bud. They literally started the war, and then we took the war to them. We're not going in to make peace, were going in because were at war. The end goal is peace but the current goal is beating them in the war.
I didn't say a "strawman argument", I said "a strawman", the fake human-shapped thingy made with straw we put in fields to scare birds (people, in my poor analogy). I'm not saying terrorism is fake tho, I'm saying they use it to scare people and forge an emotional opinion.
They started the war ? You'll have to give some solid sources for that one. If you're talking about 9/11, I invite you to make some research and find out the military presence of the US in those regions goes way back, wayyy before 2001.
Originally Posted by Divine
We have several allies thanks, and seeing as the middle east is a high conflict zone we have troops over there constantly to defend them.
That's not how it works. They didn't make alliances because they like them and put military bases there in order to gently help them as allies. They made "alliances" IN ORDER TO put military bases there, because the US needs those bases there, because they need those ressources. Do you know how wrong the US economy would turn without the middle-east's oil ?
Originally Posted by Divine
You ever heard of 9/11 bud? Like?......
Yes ? So if 6% of the terrorist attacks have been made by islamic extremists, have you heard of the rest ?
And even then, how is that a viable reason to be used to occupy countries and kill people who don't have anything to do with the attack which happened 14 years ago. Because emotions... It's easy to justify and legitimate everything when you use people's emotions, that doesn't make it right nonetheless.
Originally Posted by Divine
That was before they were a Islamic extremist/terrorist group and since they've turned all funding has been cut off. We funded them to help overthrow their corrupt governement but since then they've been unable to handle the power and have become corrupt themselves. You also act like the US is the only country who has done this, two other notable countries who have done something similar is Australia funding al-Shabaab and Germany funding Hamas.
They were already jihadists and extremists when they financed them, but they were usefull jihadists because they could be used to fight the soviets who invaded Afghanistan. It wasn't in order to overthrow a corrupt government, they didn't care much about Afghanistan, they cared about the Soviet Union at that time. And since they didn't care, the Taliban took the leadership of Afghanistan and shit ensued, thanks for the help. Afghanistan got fucked up and the USA financed fanatics who hate them, good job. Anyway, that's not the only time/country they messed up, I refer you to Oracle's post if you're interested in the matter.
I'm not debating w/ oracle since hes mainly talking to zenboy. I'm directly replying to deprav's response to me.
Well you shouldn't, I'm not only adressing my answer to you but to anyone who shares that opinion, it's a discussion board not a PM exchange. Oracle wrote a pretty precise description of the situation I'm trying to show you, and there probably is much more to be told.
Last edited by deprav; Sep 16, 2015 at 06:44 AM.
Ight homies, i don't have a lot of time right now (like I'm really under a pretty heavy workload) but you guys seem to be pretty content.
I'll try to get to both oracle and depravs arguments but it might take a day or two. Hopefully I can find some time later but I just wanted to say I might not be able to give a full blown rebuttle for a little bit, sorry.
I didn't really want to get into a full arguement when this started, just discredit the bullshit but you guys just keep going.
I'll try to get to both oracle and depravs arguments but it might take a day or two. Hopefully I can find some time later but I just wanted to say I might not be able to give a full blown rebuttle for a little bit, sorry.
I didn't really want to get into a full arguement when this started, just discredit the bullshit but you guys just keep going.
Originally Posted by Ele
Where's your evidence? You can't just say 'your argument is not historically accurate'. Especially when I've linked everyone a book listing 50+ examples of America intervening in the self-determination of other countries.
Maybe people are blaming the West because they have legitimate complaints. There's no smoke without fire. You don't hate something without a reason.
Do you really believe that the West hasn't been the cause for the instability we have today in the Middle East and Africa? If so, pls explain.
lol not sure if serious.
Originally Posted by HiPower
if someone is about to commit suicide, is it okay to murder them?
if someone is masturbating, is it alright to just go ahead and fuck them?
When did I ever make such an argument? All I said was that blaming the west for something that isn't their fault is incorrect.
Originally Posted by deprav
Links pls. lel.
African countries/states/boundaries have been created and delimited by european countries during the colonisation and post-colonisation. A lot of tribes/people got separated or put together with "ennemy" tribes... the geopolitics behind African boundaries is source of conflict. Was it done on purpose in order to control easily is another question, it's still the fault of the occident.
I'll take France as an exemple because that's what I know the most : our leading politics have supported and maintained african dictators in their respective countries for decades, in order to keep their hands on african natural ressources (oil, uranium...), and money to finance their campaigns or sit their political position, or supported/financed rebels to putsch unwanted dictator(s) and replace it with a more french-friendly one... with all the shady affairs surfacing a few years later, politics involved in money laundry and/or traffic and all that shiet. Brilliant stuff.
This is modern colonialism, this is how "powerful" countries and leaders became powerful, that's how the occident built itself. France sucked and still sucks north Africa dry, England got the southern part of Africa, and the rest of european countries got everything inbetween (and now China is involved). How is that not historically accurate ? It's in every history books or manuals.
More than that, this is the very essence of "power" and control : "divide and conquer". Those are the foundations of our world-wide financial system, step on other people's faces or get stomped. Countries, leaders and lobbyists just paddle in the general direction of the shit stream we're trying to sail ; for the glory of their nation and international competition or for their own purse, the race for ressources before everything is bled dry.
It's the exact same situation in the Middle-East, except it's not Europe (well the UN does military assists) but the US doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons.
Saying occidental countries are "the good guys" and help other poor countries because we're good guys and we feel like that's what we must do is either excessively naive, or efficient brainwashing... or maybe both.
You expect me to provide links when you make an offhand incredibly sweeping statement without any logic to back it up? Why should I be required to prove a negative?
What are you talking about exactly? The Sao? Invaded by muslims and converted to Islam. The Kanem? Invaded by muslims and converted to Islam. Ancient Egypt? Conquered by the Persians. Nubia? Subverted by the Egyptians and the Assyrians. Carthage? Wrecked by the Romans after instigating 3 wars. Berbers? Islam. Somalia? Arabs. Aksum? Persians. Shilluk? Ottoman/Sudanese/British colonization (holy fuck the west is evil, oh wait the Shilluk were absorbed into Sudan and it was a good thing after decades of anarchy, looting, being raided, etc). Baguirmi? Conquered by the Bornu. Bornu? Civil war/holy war (perpetrated by the Fula).Fula? Burned themselves out with self-destructive warfare against the Bamana, only to be enslaved by the Futanke. Bamana? Self-desctructive warfare against the Fula. Futanke? Forced absorption into the Toucouleur, aka "Tijaniyya Jihad state", only to fall in successive attempts to attack the French in West Africa (omg how dare the French not roll over and die!).
So how about you be more specific than "the west did it", because, although I do enjoy the idea that Africa was a peaceful utopia before western influence, in actual fact that entire region (Africa + Asia Minor) is a whole mess of constant conquests, jihads and warfare. Even within living memory there have been tribes engaged in warfare, slavery, etc in the region - a tradition that spreads back to time immemorial.
And yet you want to blame the relatively recent western colonization? Westerns "invading" to build infrastructure, educate the population, provide food, water, etc is not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination, and neither does western trading with African nations that are doing "bad" things cause the blame to rest solely on the west.
In recent history a country has supported another country because it's in their best interests even though you personally don't like the other country? Big whoop mate, you want to place the blame solely on supporters rather than those who actually do the work? For every example you can find of a western nation supporting/financing rebels you could probably find a dozen African nations doing the same.
It should be telling that the only African nations that have a real semblance of stability are ones that are western supported.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
lol not sure if serious.
Am serious. Don't be such a child.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Putting the blame on the west is a new meme, it's not historically accurate.
This past century in the Middle East has been defined by its exploitation by the West. This is orthodox history bro. If you've got some revisionist ideas about this then I'd love to hear them. If most historians and analysts are wrong about this, then I think it'd be important to hear what you have to say.
Last edited by Ele; Sep 16, 2015 at 06:39 PM.
