DXP Survivor 2 Part 2 (Page 2)

American outfitters and the banks themselves got rich (on interest paid on the loans) but the public (who provided the principal) never got paid back.

So in reality, American citizens paid for the war in blood and gold and got nothing back. Like all modern wars, it was a scheme by the bankers to get rich at the expense of the public.

Do you think these countries would not have fought each other where there no money? And what is the U.S. to do when allies ask for money? Say no? We went in and gave our lives too.

Furthermore you wanna know what one of the grand theories is for the cause of the great depression that we the bad bad Police of the world had to suffer here at home?

Possible Cause: World War I
The United States entered World War I late (1917) and emerged as a major creditor and financier of post-War restoration. Germany was burdened with massive war reparations (a political decision on the part of the victors, see the Treaty of Versailles). Britain and France needed to rebuild. US banks were more than willing to loan money. However, once US banks began failing ... the banks not only stopped making loans, they wanted their money back. This put pressure on European economies, which had not fully recovered from WWI, contributing to the global economic downturn.

Well it was prior to forming the Allied forces if anything it relates back to the this drive for a successful economy as I stated before. And as you stated US had no motives to wage war there simply wasn't any sort of alliance apart trades. It is irrefutable it was the reason WW1 was put into actuality also would be backed up by your sources.

Honestly I think people don't appreciate enough what this country did back in WW1 and WW2. Especially WW2

You know everyone thinks France dislikes us. But I've heard from people who live there and from people whom have visited sites where there family were buried during the war... because their bodies where not sent home. And you know what? Outside of Paris, everyone seems to have nothing but praises for the U.S.

No don't get me wrong NYAA I do appreciate it! Which is why I say this catch-22 that was created is the cruelest joke of all. The greatness of the US is it's own demise much like the Roman empire.

I won't sit here and not question some of the more recent sketchy tactics but I honestly believe during those times the US helped greatly in shaping the world we live in today.

Posted by feb16aqua
Has no one brought up the legality of the United States decision to act unilaterally against Iraq in 2003?

Since the invasion, there's been plenty of discussion about this issue.

E.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq<BR>
I wouldn't mind seeing the debate branch off into that area. Should make for some lively discussion.



Seraph posted this. I think it will add to this as a prime example.

I'll agree with that the actual reason the public was lead to believe for the U.S. entering Iraq was not entirely true.
This is a very sketchy thing to debate because no one not you not me really knows all the facts and may never know all the facts till years from now. But what I do know is this. George W.Bush was into the oil industry before he ever became president and some of his biggest investors where the Ben Laden family.
_________________________________________________________________
President Bush and the bin Laden family have been connected through dubious business deals since 1977, when Salem, the head of the bin Laden family business, one of the biggest construction companies in the world, invested in Bush's start-up oil company, Arbusto Energy, Inc.

James R. Bath, a friend and neighbor, was used to funnel money from Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, to set up George W. Bush in the oil business, according to The Wall Street Journal and other reputable sources.

Through a tangled web of Saudi multi-millionaires, Texas oilmen, and the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Bush was financially linked with the bin Laden family until Salem met an untimely end in a freak flying accident near San Antonio in 1988.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm<BR>
You could watch 'fahrenheit911' for a more unrealistic painting of Bush I can't see anyone being that evil though.

BUT despite whether the U.S. invaded for what they said they invaded for which was links to al-qaeda and/or weapons of mass destruction.....which I'm sure most people assumed Nuclear weapons rather than chemical weapons which is more on the scale of what would be realistic... The beneficial thing I can't deny for them doing it at least is finishing what they started back in dessert storm when instead of ousting Saddam Hussein then ended up leaving him in charge.

In 1990 Hussein accuses Kuwait on 17 July of oil overproduction and theft of oil from the Rumailia Oil Field. Eventually, Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Hussein was a dictator and had caused many human rights violations he had yet to pay for which.... Feb backs up my point that the U.S. does not impose democracy or we would have fought till Iraq was finished and practicing democracy back in desert storm.

So indirectly Iraq invasion did do something good whether or not the governance of that country stays stable with the U.S. removing troops is still up in the air. We should have been invading Afghanistan from the get go.

Posted by feb16aqua

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius


I'll agree with that the actual reason the public was lead to believe for the U.S. entering Iraq was not entirely true.
This is a very sketchy thing to debate because no one not you not me really knows all the facts and may never know all the facts till years from now. But what I do know is this. George W.Bush was into the oil industry before he ever became president and some of his biggest investors where the Ben Laden family.
_________________________________________________________________
President Bush and the bin Laden family have been connected through dubious business deals since 1977, when Salem, the head of the bin Laden family business, one of the biggest construction companies in the world, invested in Bush's start-up oil company, Arbusto Energy, Inc.

James R. Bath, a friend and neighbor, was used to funnel money from Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, to set up George W. Bush in the oil business, according to The Wall Street Journal and other reputable sources.

Through a tangled web of Saudi multi-millionaires, Texas oilmen, and the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Bush was financially linked with the bin Laden family until Salem met an untimely end in a freak flying accident near San Antonio in 1988.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm<BR>
You could watch 'fahrenheit911' for a more unrealistic painting of Bush I can't see anyone being that evil though.

How can you say that no one will ever really know when there was an obvious agenda of the US to get into Iraq. There were and are specific regulations and preemptive factors that were semi-inconspicuously danced around.

click to expand

What agendas would you be referring to?

Hey look I love and hate this country.
The harsh reality of the world is that while doing something good for Iraq we also took back payment for it in the form of oil.
One could even argue that Hussien's Dethroning was a magnificent way to do this legally.
There are those who oppose what you just said:
___________________________________________________________________
Oil not a factor in the Iraq war

Tony Blair stated the theory the Iraq invasion was "somehow to do with oil" was a "conspiracy theory"; "Let me first deal with the conspiracy theory that this is somehow to do with oil...The very reason why we are taking the action that we are taking is nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward.

Even Aquasnoz's Prime Minister
Then Australian Prime Minister John Howard has dismissed on multiple occasions the role of oil in the Iraq Invasion: "We didn't go there because of oil and we don't remain there because of oil."[101] In early 2003 John Howard stated, "No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that United States behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil_not_a_factor_in_the_Iraq_war

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan
"First off this debate is not about inflation scandals in BRITAIN which is where this scandal takes place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal<BR> But furthermore this debate is on whether or not the US is the 'World Police' and whether or not it is hypocritical, and self-serving or selfless."

In response to NYAA:

The LIBOR scandal may be taking place in Britain but as the LIBOR rate affects consumer and business economics on a global scale (meaning it also hits the US) and directly involves our own Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, it does directly impact the American monetary system. To think otherwise would be, as P-Angel would say, delusional.

Furthermore, this economic corruption supports my proposal for withdrawal. LIBOR played a role in the corporate bailouts (what an *f*ing joke by the way) for businesses which were deemed "too big to fail". Had the States not become so wrapped up in the policies of other nations and taken care of its own business first, these proceedings never would have had the amount of direct impact upon us as they have.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/25/news/economy/geithner-libor/index.htm<BR>
Unlike Dido, I don't want to go down with that ship.

I'm just saying were talking about the U.S. as the 'World Police' and not wallstreet bailouts.

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan
I move to counter all arguments pertaining to historical war time events and past involvements of the US in foreign affairs by standing behind my previous post which stated it was time for America to grow and evolve as a nation.

How do you judge whether the U.S. position as 'World Police' is justified without looking to the past?
I can't predict the future. Can you?

Withdraw. Bring back the manufacturing complex which will not only put the US back on the road to productive freedom from trade constraints with other nations but also reduce the unemployment rate.

The only thing bringing troops home would do is reduce the spending on that endeavor. Bringing them home would by no means guarantee a drop in unemployment. And manufacturing my dear was at it's height in the past when we were at war. And let's just say we do bring them home and say hypothetically that there were manufacturing jobs somewhere.....these troops are payed by the government to be in the armed forces. What makes you think they will work a manufacturing job too....given there will be one here and not in Cambodia somewhere?

Tap into our own natural resources such as oil to release us from our dependence on the Middle East.

Tell me how to change the minds of the green group/rights activists.

Reconstruct the tax revenue system and rebuild the military industry for our own safeguard post-withdrawal. Inflation will halt, material costs will decrease, the banks will begin loaning to the people again so that they can retain their homes (provided that they repay said loans appropriately).

click to expand

These are A LOT of assumptions. Inflation has been caused by the Obama stimulus package....he got extra money printed and handed it out to everyone and in turn devaluing the dollar bill. Don't get me wrong I actually 'think' I like Obama.... he seems to mean well to me but a lot of what he proposes to do just isn't doing it, at least when it comes to the stimulus package anyways.
And just cause inflation halts doesn't mean material costs go down.

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan
"First off this debate is not about inflation scandals in BRITAIN which is where this scandal takes place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal<BR> But furthermore this debate is on whether or not the US is the 'World Police' and whether or not it is hypocritical, and self-serving or selfless."

In response to NYAA:

The LIBOR scandal may be taking place in Britain but as the LIBOR rate affects consumer and business economics on a global scale (meaning it also hits the US) and directly involves our own Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, it does directly impact the American monetary system. To think otherwise would be, as P-Angel would say, delusional.

Furthermore, this economic corruption supports my proposal for withdrawal. LIBOR played a role in the corporate bailouts (what an *f*ing joke by the way) for businesses which were deemed "too big to fail". Had the States not become so wrapped up in the policies of other nations and taken care of its own business first, these proceedings never would have had the amount of direct impact upon us as they have.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/25/news/economy/geithner-libor/index.htm<BR>
Unlike Dido, I don't want to go down with that ship.

I'm just saying were talking about the U.S. as the 'World Police' and not wallstreet bailouts.

And I'm just saying that those Wallstreet bailouts support my position to remove ourselves from the "world police" equation.

click to expand

Okay fine we are wearing ourselves thin that I can't deny.

Posted by feb16aqua

Yeah, that's why I named other reasons as well and stated that the oil argument was shaky.
YES and under the premise that Hussein harbored WPD, which is also widely disputed as they were NEVER found.

I'm not denying that what weapons of mass destruction meant and the motives for why we went are obviously suspicious.
___________________________________________________________________________________
"The notion that Bush lied about intelligence to get [us] into war," Silberman says, "is an absurd and outrageous libel."
Dignified and eloquent, Silberman, a senior judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, represents one of the leading figures on the federal bench.

"As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics," Silberman says. "But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that ... [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion."

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, "clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002." How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? "A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes."

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

"That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points," Silberman says. "[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing."

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

(continued)
Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

"Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction," Silberman explains. "Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world ... to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction."

-------------------------------------------
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/24/iraq-george-w-bush-cia-intelligence-laurence-silberman-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan


Inflation began long before the Obama administration,

Then if it has been around long before him why would bringing back troops halt it?

though I cannot deny that they have done more than their fair share to contribute to the problem. Inflation and money printing has been going on since the governing body decided to depart from the gold standard. These practices must immediately cease and desist as they do nothing but harm.

How do you propose to stop them?

And material costs do go down when you aren't paying the extra cost of importing, shipping, distribution, and higher taxes (which would evaluated during the reconstruction of the tax system).

click to expand

A reevaluation of the tax system is an assumption... we don't know what they will do. Also material costs go down when your
real GDP (GDP=gross domestic product) goes up and you have excess and not your nominal GDP which is based off of dollar bills which are subject to inflation as we have already been discussing.

Posted by Jahlia

Posted by feb16aqua

Posted by Jahlia


Regardless if it is our moral responsibility or not(that in itself is highly debatable), in the long run, pandering to everyone else's needs is self destructive for us and does them(the other countries) more harm than good in the end. If we are expected to save the day, it's not going to be a good motivator for many countries to stand on their own two feet. Which is harmful because, we are not going to be around forever. Countries need to learn how to protect themselves, because eventually they are going to have to defend themselves-without us. And even if it is our moral responsibility(though I seriously doubt that), it's a responsibility that we can no longer continue having because it costs money we don't have.

Yeah, the standard defense on the entire subject. ok. Where do you get that we're not going to be around forever? Who says so.

Nothing lasts forever but perhaps I worded that wrong. When I said that we're not going to be around forever, I meant that we're not going to be around to protect other countries forever. No one can spend their entire lives being protected and shielded by another person or thing. Eventually, they are going to have to stand up for themselves because sometime in the future, the US is not going to be a global protector. This can happen either from lack of resources or a simple refusal to continue having the job we should have never had in the first place.

click to expand

It's kinda hard to refuse if they are your allies.

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

How do I propose to stop them from printing money? LSD. Lots of it. Keep them all tripping balls long enough that their terms eventually expire and the US can vote in new people to take more appropriate action.

lol LSD might be the best thing for them 😉

As for the tax system being an assumption and the GDP, I refer you once more to my previous post regarding manufacturing which would increase "real" gross domestic product for export rather than importing everything.

click to expand

There actually has to be something to manufacture. There has to be an apple plant here in the U.S. and not over in friggen China, a nike shoe making factory here in the U.S. and not in Thailand, etc. Think about this hypothetical situation: the U.S. lets go more then half the troops that come home and all of them are suddenly unemployed.... we already have an unemployment situation as it is.... if a substantial amount of citizens come home and have no job..... it will make the unemployment RISE not FALL. You are assuming there a tons of jobs just sitting here waiting for them to do.

And furthermore no matter what anyones' views are the U.S. acting as the 'World Police' in the end did in fact track down and kill Osama Ben Laden. If you think that is only justice for the U.S. your wrong because there were people from all over the world in the Twin Towers when it was struck by those plains. Furthermore, nations from all over the world had vested interests in those two buildings in New York.

Killing Osama Ben Laden was justice for every life that got snuffed out that day.... for every relative from around the world whose wife, husband, son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandson, grandaughter, etc died that day. It was some form of justice for the countries who suffered economic suffering from the event. And it will probably be overlooked.... when it is in fact who that brought this justice?.....The United States of America.

Posted by MellyMel

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

How do I propose to stop them from printing money? LSD. Lots of it. Keep them all tripping balls long enough that their terms eventually expire and the US can vote in new people to take more appropriate action.

lol LSD might be the best thing for them 😉

As for the tax system being an assumption and the GDP, I refer you once more to my previous post regarding manufacturing which would increase "real" gross domestic product for export rather than importing everything.

There actually has to be something to manufacture. There has to be an apple plant here in the U.S. and not over in friggen China, a nike shoe making factory here in the U.S. and not in Thailand, etc. Think about this hypothetical situation: the U.S. lets go more then half the troops that come home and all of them are suddenly unemployed.... we already have an unemployment situation as it is.... if a substantial amount of citizens come home and have no job..... it will make the unemployment RISE not FALL. You are assuming there a tons of jobs just sitting here waiting for them to do.

How do the United States' DOMESTIC economic and manufacturing practices tie into the topic at hand concerning GLOBAL policing and law enforcement?

click to expand

It ties into it in that Vulcan is arguing that we should bring home our troops. And all the benefits that will come with it I was just pointing out were she might be assuming a little to much that is it.

Posted by feb16aqua
Well Aquasnoz and NYAA I have to ask you both a very critical question as my counter and booya to both of you. What is your agenda in all of this? Because you must have one, or a few.
Frankly speaking, everyone has an agenda, no matter how big or small. Why didn't we impose on Cuba? Again, look at the bigger picture. There is an agenda involved and of course the US has one of its own. Unconditionally, a country will in fact do what is best for itself, to further its agenda, but who is going to upkeep the moral accountability on such a grand scale? Why did we not impose on cuba NYAA as you have asserted and why is our presence so strong in the Middle East?

Also Aquasnoz, did you not think that that was known at that time and discussed in thorough detail with the predominant parties?

We probably haven't invaded there because the human rigths violations are not as prevalent but one can only assume after all. I don't live there.

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius

There actually has to be something to manufacture. There has to be an apple plant here in the U.S. and not over in friggen China, a nike shoe making factory here in the U.S. and not in Thailand, etc. Think about this hypothetical situation: the U.S. lets go more then half the troops that come home and all of them are suddenly unemployed.... we already have an unemployment situation as it is.... if a substantial amount of citizens come home and have no job..... it will make the unemployment RISE not FALL. You are assuming there a tons of jobs just sitting here waiting for them to do.

Maybe I should have figured out to write that part about bringing back the manufacturing and production complex in big BOLD letters. Would turning on the capslock help bring attention to that? You are making an assumption that I am assuming that all of these changes will take place over night. Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. Not even in my ideal world. Everything would have to be done in phases. X in one year, Y in another, and Z the year after that.

Seriously people, get over the need for instant gratification because there are no lasting solutions that will meet your criteria. A real "fix" is going to take decades. But we have to start sooner rather than later because the longer we wait to make the necessary changes, the harder it will be.

Don't screw around trying to pull off the bandaid slowly. Just rip the SOB off and deal with the initial sting.

click to expand

Yes they would be good if they did them but anyways the point of this debate is not even that and as MellyMel pointed out we both were kinda getting of topic and I have myself to blame for that one ^.^ Let's stick to the U.S. being 'World Police'

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

Posted by robyn808

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan
"First off this debate is not about inflation scandals in BRITAIN which is where this scandal takes place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal<BR> But furthermore this debate is on whether or not the US is the 'World Police' and whether or not it is hypocritical, and self-serving or selfless."

In response to NYAA:

The LIBOR scandal may be taking place in Britain but as the LIBOR rate affects consumer and business economics on a global scale (meaning it also hits the US) and directly involves our own Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, it does directly impact the American monetary system. To think otherwise would be, as P-Angel would say, delusional.

Furthermore, this economic corruption supports my proposal for withdrawal. LIBOR played a role in the corporate bailouts (what an *f*ing joke by the way) for businesses which were deemed "too big to fail". Had the States not become so wrapped up in the policies of other nations and taken care of its own business first, these proceedings never would have had the amount of direct impact upon us as they have.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/25/news/economy/geithner-libor/index.htm<BR>
Unlike Dido, I don't want to go down with that ship.

The LIBOR scandal was a snow ball effect that started with the repeal of the Glass—Steagall Act by way of the Gramm—Leach—Bliley Act of 1999. Creating an economic bubble that collapse around 2007.

All before 911 and the wars there after. And came about long after the public had already forgotten there was even a war in Iraq going on. We deemed these business —too big to fail?? because we took care of our own business first. We did this to our selves by allowing corporations to take over, and to do nothing would have meant the fall of our nation during the last decade. We are all living on borrowed time.

And none of that would have had to happen if we had been kicking it here in the homeland minding our own business and taking care of our stash like we should have been all along.

Thanks for going that extra step there to help me prove my point.

click to expand

So, let me ask you this Vulcan. Would you not want another country who is allied

(got cut off)
So, let me ask you this Vulcan. Would you not want another country who is allied to us help protect us from invasion and/or attack by another country? Let's say we were a weaker country and we were being maliciously taken over by another....would you not want a stronger country who is your ally to come and protect you? Even if it was not in their best interest economically/politically?

Posted by MellyMel
Also, is she even playing?! I thought she dropped out?! Why are the actual contestants debating a non-contestant?!

No Melly she decided to come back after we told how much we'd miss her 🙂

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

Posted by MellyMel
@NYAA: I quoted the wrong entry; sorry! My comment was directed towards TMV. She is in favor of the U.S. NOT being a universal presence. But all her arguments are geared towards the domestic implications, not the global ramifications, of such an action.

Exactly. A part of my point is that we have to stop giving a crap about the rest of the globe for a moment while we fix our own problems.

Selfish? Maybe.

Effective? Certainly.

click to expand

When you stop paying attention to the rest of the world stuff like the bombing on Pearl Harbor when we as a nation wanted to stay out of it happens, the air planes crashes to the twin towers happens.

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
(got cut off)
So, let me ask you this Vulcan. Would you not want another country who is allied to us help protect us from invasion and/or attack by another country? Let's say we were a weaker country and we were being maliciously taken over by another....would you not want a stronger country who is your ally to come and protect you? Even if it was not in their best interest economically/politically?

You may have to give me a specific example of another country by which to judge what constitutes being "smaller and weaker" if I am not to assume that this is acting as the US.

click to expand

Every nation practically that we go to war against half the time we help them rebuild afterwards... if that isn't a conundrum I don't know what is? How is that in our best interest economically anyways. Are you gonna say it's an investment?

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

Posted by DeeGee


We are the chosen people, to do Gods work, against evil...We are the "Ultimate Super Power" and not by choice but by God himself...no other country on this planet could do, or would do, what we have done, without taking complete power over the rest of the world and we could.

Congrats DG on coming up with another very unique standpoint. This one is hard to debate and took me a while to come up with a defense against it, but here it goes:

—Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, —Let me take the speck out of your eye,?? when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

--Matthew 7: 1-5

"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"

--James 4: 11-12

"For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?"

--Romans 2: 1-3

"Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, —Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.??

--Romans 12: 16-19

I'm pretty sure that God is trying to say that we have NO right to be an "ultimate super power" over anyone.

click to expand

Okay if your gonna use the bib

(cut off)
Okay if your gonna use the bible then you can't defend the fact that 'God' also sent armies to war. They fought in fact for God. I mean how do you explain joshua and the walls of jericho?
Joshua 6:1-27

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
(cut off)
Okay if your gonna use the bible then you can't defend the fact that 'God' also sent armies to war. They fought in fact for God. I mean how do you explain joshua and the walls of jericho?
Joshua 6:1-27

Are you seriously trying to defend another player's argument in a free-for-all? Really?

click to expand

I'm only pointing it out 🙂
I have the freedom to do that do I not.

There are only two sides to this argument which one are you on?

She recanted the bible robyn lol.... I don't really blame her either 😛

Look the point of this debate is ....is the U.S. justified in it's actions to be the 'World Police'. Are they self motivated and if so does this self motivation benefit or not benefit other countries.

First off when another country begs you to defend them whether when you go it is out of your own self interest or not I don't see how helping someone else whether they are your ally or not, being justified.

I mean some developing countries we just give money away to....
____________________________________________________________________
U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan

The U.S. has made a long-term commitment to help Afghanistan rebuild itself after years of war. While the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan is transitioning primary security responsibility to Afghan National Security Forces, the United States plans to remain politically, diplomatically, and economically engaged in Afghanistan for the long term. The U.S. and others in the international community currently provide resources and expertise to Afghanistan in a variety of areas, including humanitarian relief and assistance, capacity-building, security needs, counter-narcotic programs, and infrastructure projects.

The United States supports the Afghan Government's goals of focusing on reintegration and reconciliation, economic development, improving relations with Afghanistan??s regional partners, and steadily increasing the security capability of Afghan security forces. The U.S. encourages the Afghan Government to take strong actions to combat corruption and improve governance, and to provide better services for the people of Afghanistan, while maintaining and expanding on the important democratic reforms and advances in women??s rights that have been made since 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm<BR>
And this country is not our military ally.... they are not a part of NATO

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

*yawn*

Boosting the manufacturing and production complex--that means we reopen old factories that have closed and build new ones to meet demands--in order to become self-sustaining rather than reliant on foreign goods creates more jobs and more GDP for exports.

If it helps:

Imagine that right now the US has ten apples (products for export). They sell 21% of those ten apples.

A year later after new orchards have been planted and people have been hired to take care of them, the US has 1,000 apples. They still sell 21% of those apples, but 21% of 1K > 21% of 10 apples. That means the US will have more $ $ $ to help pay back the $ $ $ we borrowed like a bunch of morons. Owing other countries less $ $ $ is good. Other countries getting back their $ $ $ is also good.

While this is still slightly off topic I will point out something else you are overlooking as well. The price of certain goods are at the price they are at because where they are being manufactured. If you suddenly change that and pay ten times that to a U.S. citizen to make it....it will only make the cost of the garment, shoe, ipad....go up in price exponentially. I really wish it would help but it's hard to see how and another issue is that the Laws of Economics Promotes us outsourcing. MacroEconomics would say that outsourcing not only promotes jobs in the parent country but also benefits the rest of the world....in other words the country your outsourcing to.
___________________________________________________________________________
How Could Outsourcing Produce More Jobs?

A study done in 2004 by Professor Matthew J. Slaughter at Dartmouth University
found that outsourcing is actually a way of increasing the number of American
jobs. He found that employment increased both for American firms involved in
outsourcing but also for their affiliates in other countries. While employment in
foreign affiliates rose by 2.8 million jobs, employment in the U.S. parent firms
rose even more --by 5.5 million jobs. In other words,for every one job
outsourced, U.S. firms created nearly two jobs in the United States. Companies
that outsource create far more domestic jobs than companies that do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.commonsenseeconomics.com/Activities/Outsourcing.pdf<BR>

I'd like to see what happens if the U.S. just said hey "Fuck you guys" "We got our own to take care of go fuck yourself!"

LOOOOL

You'd probably be surprised by the response from the rest of the world then!

An interesting post on CNN I thought you might find interesting too.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Much of the talk about the U.S. —Pivot to Asia?? has one thing wrong: it is not a pivot away from the Middle East. That is not to say that some in the Obama administration don't wish they could pivot away from the Middle East, or that the U.S. Central Command isn't exhausted from fighting wars for more than a decade. Both are true. Instead, it is to say that Asia??s ties to the Middle East are growing vigorously, and a U.S. commitment to Asian security necessarily means the United States inherits Asia??s growing interests in the Middle East.

The United States cannot pull out of the Middle East. Rather, its increasing engagement with Asia means that it is increasingly getting pulled into the Middle East, although from the other side.

The United States fought two land wars in Southwest Asia over the last decade. During that period, several things happened. One is that East Asian economies largely recovered from the financial crisis of the late 1990s and took off. China was the big story, clocking double-digit rates of growth. India unshackled its economy from decades of socialism and grew an average of more than seven percent per year. South Korea boomed and became the 15th largest economy in the world, and Indonesia grew at more than five percent annually. Japan??s modest growth through this period was an outlier, but that low growth was on a much higher base: Japan is still the world??s 3rd largest economy.

(I'll add that when have a large economy it's harder for it to grow at such rates as well)

Amidst all that economic growth, China??s increasing visibility in Asian affairs alarmed several of its neighbors, who set about looking for an outside power to balance against China. While few in the United States seek a confrontation with China, many of China??s neighbors seek a greater U.S. presence in Asia to deter China from staging a confrontation with them. The strategic desire in the region for a greater U.S. presence, combined with economic interests, brings the United States in further.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/no-u-s-isnt-turning-back-on-middle-east/

Also interesting from that same source.
____________________________________________________________________________
The United States has long partnered with Europeans on Middle Eastern diplomacy, but Middle East interests are by no means a European preserve. Asian countries importing millions of barrels of oil a day have a keen interest in regional stability and energy security, and they increasingly pursue diplomacy to further those goals. U.S. diplomacy is similarly concerned with stability and energy security. While the United States imports relatively little energy directly from the Middle East, all of its Asian allies import it in growing amounts and use it to manufacture goods that they sell to the United States. In this way, indirect U.S. imports of Middle Eastern oil remain robust.

In addition, oil (and to a lesser extent, gas) are globally traded commodities, so a price spike in one place affects prices globally. U.S. production can affect where the specific barrels of U.S. oil consumption come from, but it has much less effect on the price of those barrels. For that reason, the United States cannot turn away from the Middle East. Instead, it will increasingly turn to the Middle East from the other side of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/no-u-s-isnt-turning-back-on-middle-east/<BR>

Posted by Jahlia

I never said we'd deny our allies help, but we can't help everyone. However I'm going to go there anyway, even if our allies need our help, if we don't have the means or the money to help then how do they expect us to help them? And also, how would telling our allies that they need to strengthen their own armies to protect themselves be a bad thing? And shouldn't our allies be able to protect themselves most of the time? Last time I checked, being allies with someone didn't mean you had free reign rely on them solely for protection. They must know that we're having a recession and that if

So...you suggest we sit idle while another country takes out our ally? And then we are down an ally? Just because we help them doesn't mean we aren't trying to help them become self sufficient. If someone attacks before they even are self sufficient enough to defend or hell ....lets just say they were... you seriously think it wise to let our own ally go to the wayside? I sure hope were never in that situation!

Posted by robyn808
Nacho! Can you write your own arguments please!

Well I mean I could say what I think all day but if I have nothing to back it up with then everyone is gonna say I'm blowing smoke out my ass.... I'll stop quoting the CNN site sorry.

Posted by robyn808

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius

Posted by robyn808
Nacho! Can you write your own arguments please!

Well I mean I could say what I think all day but if I have nothing to back it up with then everyone is gonna say I'm blowing smoke out my ass.... I'll stop quoting the CNN site sorry.

Lol, I'm just like damn there's more reference then opinion. How am I supposed to trip you up?

click to expand

Well, the idea is for you not to trip me up 🙂

Posted by feb16aqua
@NYAA

"It's kinda hard to refuse if they are your allies."


Really, well we have denied allies and countries that have needed our help but did not fit in with our agenda before so

Give me an example of the U.S. refusing to help an ally in severe need.

Posted by feb16aqua

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius


Well I mean I could say what I think all day but if I have nothing to back it up with then everyone is gonna say I'm blowing smoke out my ass.... I'll stop quoting the CNN site sorry.

You speak your mind and quote when and if necessary, or asked for

click to expand

LOL! Touchy 😄

Falkland Islands and the UK do not represent a severe need. They are disputing land area for oil exploration... and might I add they are doing it diplomatically. There are no wars or blood being shed over this is there?

Posted by feb16aqua
Yeah you added your SPIN of severe need on it when that was never the wording used in the first place.

Well that is what I meant 🙂

Posted by feb16aqua

Posted by Jahlia
@Feb16Aqua

I haven't wavered from my original stance, I'm well aware that the US is considered to be the global police but regardless, I don't believe that it should be. And I've already stated that I don't believe that this is a responsibility that the United States or any other sole country should have.

First of all, are you the keymaster? There is no dana only zuul.

So a group of nations in charge? Isn't that what the UN is supposedly for?

click to expand

w00t Ghost Busters!

Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
While this is still slightly off topic I will point out something else you are overlooking as well. The price of certain goods are at the price they are at because where they are being manufactured. If you suddenly change that and pay ten times that to a U.S. citizen to make it....it will only make the cost of the garment, shoe, ipad....go up in price exponentially. I really wish it would help but it's hard to see how and another issue is that the Laws of Economics Promotes us outsourcing. MacroEconomics would say that outsourcing not only promotes jobs in the parent country but also benefits the rest of the world....in other words the country your outsourcing to.

The outsourcing issue may be true when you have a reasonable bear market to work with and companies can afford to expand, not so unlike it was in 2004, when that study was published before the collapse of the housing bubble, but during a recession, not so much. Right now the Fed is pumping mega-dollars into the market to the tune of around $ 85 billion a week just to prevent a repeat of the '29 crash. Corporations aren't expanding in this climate, they're trying to shrink and will continue to do so as the Obama administrations tax increases take effect over the next few years unless certain repeals come to order.

And at first, there probably would be a hike in material prices because of the cost difference in labor. However, that would even out relatively quickly as the economy adjusted. Americans will be paid more than foreign laborers would, true, but in the long run you're cutting out the expense of importation, customs taxes, distribution, and middle management positions with all the tax costs that come with them. If nothing else we would at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the infant formula we're buying for our children wouldn't be laced with potentially lethal toxic chemicals. Long-term it would be more efficient and safer to produce our own supplies.

click to expand

Just so you know I am taking a Macro Economics course right now with a book published in 2012 and they still uphold that outsourcing is actually good for the economy.

Ghost Buster are the 'World Police' w00t!

Posted by robyn808

Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius

Just so you know I am taking a Macro Economics course right now with a book published in 2012 and they still uphold that outsourcing is actually good for the economy.

Well its a good thing they are indoctrinating you now, because you might never question if its only good for the 1%

click to expand

Hey at least I scholarly proof to back my position..

Posted by feb16aqua
so even after everything you've been schooled on you still stand by your "full withdrawl." Sorry but that is completely illogical given the countless arguments that demonstrated that this can and will never happen.

Then you contradict yourself. Is it a full withdrawl or do we tactically intervene?

LOL the national debt will not be rectified.

Again, I say that your stance feels isolationist, and that's scary. We cannot logically cut ourselves off from the world just for the sake of knowing what goes in our baby formula.

LOL I dunno why but the baby formula comment made giggle 🙂

me*