Argentbear
Well-Known Member
President Obama doesn't need me to defend him, he has a lifetime of experience in dealing with racists
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Democratic Party is the Party of War
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
SYria's Ba'athist government seized power through a violent coup in 1963. it is estimated that 100,000 people were killed in the coup, mostly civilians. The Ba'athist government have since engaged in ethnic cleansing, forced deportations, massacres, summary executions, mass rapes and other forms of violence to maintain its totalitarian rule in Syria.
By the early 70's there had been over 6 million deaths in Syria sparking the largest refugee crisis in the world. Syrian military and Ba'athist security forces have systematically unleashed scorched earth tactics on populations it deemed hostile; receiving international condemnation.
in 1976 Syria invaded and occupied Lebanon and began a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
In the 2004 Qamishli massacre. the Ba'athist military launched a brutal crackdown against protestors and killed thousands of civilians
These include hundreds of chemical attacks, massacres, torture, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing, forced disappearances and various other acts of state terror under orders from the highest echelons of the Ba'athist regime.
yeah real safe
EinGeheimkonto
Member
Both of the parties are pro-war, just for slightly different reasons; both will also virtue-signal for and against war if they think it buys them more votes.
There is a paradoxical support since the supporters of each respective party (Democrats/Republicans) nominally oppose each other on the cultural front and on other areas - but they are more or less in total alignment on the big-ticket Foreign Policy issues. So while Democrats might decry big business and want universal healthcare (and Republicans oppose this), and while Republicans go against "woke agendas" - they tend to agree on issues like Russia, Iran, and China.
I would wager to say that a Democrat senator in California cares less if they ban abortion in Kansas, than if that same Kansas senator votes against funding the next American quagmire; then all hell breaks lose and they get accused of being unpatriotic.
This is even more apparent now that Trump changed his tune from 2016. Trump wanted to "Drain the Swamp" and at least made some campaign promises towards rejecting the Atlantic-Imperial neoconservatism of the Bush era. I think in many ways, he ended up paying the price for it; I think the post-Trump backlash and witch-hunting against him would have not been so severe had he not made enemies of both Republicans and Democrats.
Modern Republicans aren't too different from the Bush-era Republicans. The voter base is still somewhat delusional and can be whipped up into a sort of nationalist frenzy if need be. Even if some fiscally conservative Republicans are growing weary of the Ukraine conflict, they're totally fine with the pivot to Israel/Palestine or China/Taiwan.
There is a paradoxical support since the supporters of each respective party (Democrats/Republicans) nominally oppose each other on the cultural front and on other areas - but they are more or less in total alignment on the big-ticket Foreign Policy issues. So while Democrats might decry big business and want universal healthcare (and Republicans oppose this), and while Republicans go against "woke agendas" - they tend to agree on issues like Russia, Iran, and China.
I would wager to say that a Democrat senator in California cares less if they ban abortion in Kansas, than if that same Kansas senator votes against funding the next American quagmire; then all hell breaks lose and they get accused of being unpatriotic.
This is even more apparent now that Trump changed his tune from 2016. Trump wanted to "Drain the Swamp" and at least made some campaign promises towards rejecting the Atlantic-Imperial neoconservatism of the Bush era. I think in many ways, he ended up paying the price for it; I think the post-Trump backlash and witch-hunting against him would have not been so severe had he not made enemies of both Republicans and Democrats.
Modern Republicans aren't too different from the Bush-era Republicans. The voter base is still somewhat delusional and can be whipped up into a sort of nationalist frenzy if need be. Even if some fiscally conservative Republicans are growing weary of the Ukraine conflict, they're totally fine with the pivot to Israel/Palestine or China/Taiwan.
Calling him Hussein is not racist.
If he doesn't like his middle name, he can change it. It's legal.
The financial-banking sewer has been thrown out of Syria, I learnt.
It's not my fault if Syrians don't like sewer rats in their country.
In 2020 the US police killed protestors too... it was January the 6th.
Hypocrisy at its best?
Maybe Americans ignore that Europeans blame them for what happened in Ukraine...
and the anti-war parties are on the rise.
I saw him more as a figurehead. Someone who was neither qualified nor knowledgeable enough about foreign policy to initiate the kind of decisions you're attributing to him. He just rubber-stamped whatever his advisors were telling him.
There wasn't much he could do about that. That war was in the making as soon as the USSR redrew the boundaries of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to include Crimea and the Donbas (both of which had never previously been considered part of Ukraine). It's kind of ironic that Ukraine is so desperate to keep land which was never really theirs to begin with and was given to them by the Soviet regime they claim to detest so much.
But it had nothing to do with Obama, except that he merely rubber-stamped the views of the Pentagon and ruling class at the time. He just did what he was told by his handlers, but I doubt he cared that much personally, one way or the other. Why would he?
My main complaint against Obama is that he chose to continue the US occupation and presence in Afghanistan, even after Osama Bin Laden was executed. The whole reason for going into Afghanistan at all was to eliminate Osama Bin Laden, and once that was completed, there was no more reason to stay in Afghanistan. Yet, Obama chose to stay.
His problem was that, even though he was President, he seemed to just want to go with the flow of what his military leaders and other advisors were telling him. Of course, there were many pundits and media moguls behind such policies as well. He could have chosen to go maverick and followed his own ideals, but he didn't.
Perhaps. One of the people I heard that philosophy spoken was from a general who spoke at my high school history class. He served in the Philippines under MacArthur and was involved in the liberation of those islands from the Japanese in WW2.
But even then, FDR was inclined to listen to his Joint Chiefs of Staff. My impression was that FDR was not a micromanager as other leaders have been. That may have been the key to his success in the war, but in the process, he may have created a monster which none of his successors could tame or restrain. Truman was a political neophyte; all he knew about was selling socks. He was clearly easily manipulated into creating the CIA, the NSA, as well as the policy of Containment known as the Truman Doctrine (as if he actually thought of it), which is largely the same blueprint used for foreign and military policy even up to the present day.
The policies we see being carried out in regard to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan (among other places) all follow the same basic practices associated with the Truman Doctrine during the Cold War.
Well, again, I guess it just depends on what political debates you're talking about and what the topic might be. Obviously, a lot of attention is being placed on Ukraine and Russia because that's an area which seems to need more attention at the moment. But that doesn't mean the rest of Europe is being ignored.
Indeed, the main reason there's so much attention on Russia right now is because they are on the same continent and viewed by some as a potential threat to Europe, particularly the countries which border Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. I've heard Poland and the Baltics mentioned many times during these debates. Germany is a bit more distant and may not be considered as much an immediate concern at the moment.
That said, I do share your criticisms to some extent. Not just about Europe, but about those who are very selective in their focus on world events. I've posted threads on recent elections and political events in Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, and various other places in the world which get almost zero response or attention. This makes me think that people simply don't know or care about these regions. But if someone posts about Ukraine or Hamas, suddenly everyone and his mother comes out of the woodwork to post their opinion on the matter. Everyone has their opinions about that, but the rest of the world is just one big blank to them.
Well, I can tell you as a resident of the USA, things are far from perfect. I'm not saying that it's terrible or anything. There are a lot of good things, as well as many advancements that we didn't have when I was younger. But there's a lot of deterioration - crumbling roads, boarded up storefronts, closed warehouses and factories standing as symbols of what America used to be. And a lot of lost potential and vanished dreams. I grew up with movies like "2001: A Space Odyssey," which inspired people to believe that we were really going places, that it could only get better from here (as long as we didn't get into a world war with Russia).
The fact that we still choose to bog ourselves down in war when we could be reaching for the stars is truly disappointing.
As I said...there are the plutocratic élites who want to bribe and control politicians. But they are just sewer rats that need to be hunted out. And rooted out.
It seems that way, although they have to do more than just bribe and control politicians. They also have to be able to manipulate and manufacture public opinion, which is where the real power lies in a democratic system. As for the politicians, even those who might want to do the right thing and go into politics for all the right reasons, even they become aware of the pitfalls and the mechanisms which drive public opinion, which is why they so often come off as mealy mouthed and afraid of saying the wrong thing. They're more like advertisers trying to sell a product, which means their message is largely watered-down and designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
He admitted that not planning the Libyan War forward was his worst mistake.
But that's acknowledging that these technocrats (or advisors) do disastrous things...not good things.
As an Italian, closest ally to Libya...I confirm. That's the worst and the most unnecessary thing a POTUS has ever done.
Germany is the first economic power in Europe... I think it matters ...more than Ukraine.
It turns out that Germans accuse the American Deep State of provoking Putin...because the Russians had said that NATO bases in Ukraine were a line not to cross for the sake of peace and stability in the area. Since Ukraine was meant to remain a buffer state.
So it's absurd you say we Europeans fear Russians. No...we fear Americans because they want a WW3 against Russia.
This video is very clear, Many German Politicians think the Americans provoked this war. The other German politicians say that behind the scenes.
Besides...only by joining the EU, Ukraine can become a real pacifist country.
How do we know that? Because the Baltics were tamed with all their Russophobia. They know that if they dare wage warlike operations against Russia we will kick them out of the EU for violating the treaties articles about peace.
They don't want to be kicked out, so they can keep their Russophobic paranoia under control.
It depends on the meaning of the word élite.
Belonging to the élites is something the American voters find prestigious and admirable.
In Italy if you say: "I belong to the élites and am proud of it"...well...nobody will vote for you for the next 80 years (including your heirs).
Unfortunately it's centuries of aristocratic oppression that made people here hate the privileged.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Interestingly, the DNC hated Dick Cheney when he was VP under George Bush, because they thought he was a war monger pushing the Iraqi war. Now Dick Cheney and his daughter endorse Harris and DNC, over Trump and the RNC, since the Cheneys have more in common with Biden and Harris. The party has change so much.Warlike Party.... Long live WAR
and then war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war and war.
After watching this interview...I mean.
But if you want to convince me it isn't the party of war...well...I am listening to you. I am ready to say: sorry, it's not the party of war.
PS: Since this thread is not about Trump, do not mention him, or I will have to kindly ask you to remove the posts bringing him up.
I was a young liberal minded soul back during the Viet Nam War, when the DNC was the anti-war party. Now they are now the war party, which is causing them to lose part of their once loyal base; blue collar, who no longer recognizes their former party. The anti-war movement in the 1960-70's was actually a blue collar movement, since the rich could avoid war, but the poor were pawns for war and the military industrial complex. The dress down of the hippies was, in part, to show solidarity with the war plight of the poor.
Creedence Clearwater Revival; Fortunate Son.
One thing to take note of is a general pattern I've seen in presidential politics and how it has played out in the military and bureaucracy. A lot of Presidents have been outsiders and relative newcomers to Washington, at least in the past 50 years or so. Nixon and Bush (sr.) might be exceptions, but Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush (jr.) all came in with experience as state governors, but little experience at the national or international level. Obama was a state legislator for a few terms, then became senator, then President before his first term as senator was even over. And Trump had no experience in public office at all.
Well, Reagan bombed Libya, too, back in 1985. This wasn't our first time tangling with Libya. I was still in my 20s at that time, and I spoke out against it, but everyone I spoke to insisted that "it had to be done" and "what else could we do?"
A lot of US propaganda back then portrayed that part of the world as being controlled by religious fanatics who just started hating America for no good reason. So, from Americans' viewpoint, they just started hating us, which compelled many to hate them back. That's how propaganda works, and it worked like a charm during the Reagan era. It continues to work to this day.
Well, Germany is certainly a major power and an integral part of this whole thing. They've been part of NATO for 75 years and a major US military base. They haven't been forgotten.
Yeah, there has been quite a bit of "poking the bear" from the US side. A lot of US politicians can be quite arrogant saber-rattlers. A lot of ordinary Americans are even kind of crazy themselves, always got a chip on their shoulder. I don't know what it is. That other thread about Trump talking about Arnold Palmer's genitalia reminded me of George Carlin's thoughts on America's propensity for war. His comedic, satirical explanation has some kernels of truth:
But it's not just the US. A lot of voices from Europe seem to be echoing the anti-Putin sentiment. But opinions are divided, just as they are within the US.
I'll need an English transcription or translation to watch that video. I don't speak German. But I'm still interested in what they have to say. In the end, if the Germans can come up with a peace plan and convince the other European countries, along with Russia and Ukraine, to go along with it, then I would be the first to applaud. I agree that it should be dealt with through the established diplomatic means which have existed in Europe for centuries, even before America gained independence. I have consistently argued that America not get involved in matters where we have no business getting involved.
Perhaps that may happen.
I don't think many among the ordinary Americans has much love of the elite, although one might find other terms used to describe the same group of people. One of the terms used is "special interests." A lot of politicians run on the platform of fighting against the "special interests" but are often terribly vague about how and what this actually means. But it sounds good. It sounds like someone who's going to fight for the common people and against the elite. But do they actually do that? Probably not. The best one might hope for is someone who can hobnob with the elite, perhaps doing something for them in exchange for something that might help the constituents in their district.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I was expecting something like "No, the Democratic Party is for peace".
But you will never say it...I am pretty sure of that.
Nope, I wouldn't. Neither Democrats or Republicans are for or against peace. Some in each party appear to be for one or the other, and that depends on the circumstances in question.
But disallowing posts including Trump in this discussion when he was President and potentially the next isn't practical.
It is to demonstrate that the only argument of the Democratic Party is anti-Trumpism.
And the truth is that it's because he is a white heterosexual male...who is proud of being straight.
Which is a flaw.
Wikileaks showed to the world that the reason Americans hated Gaddafi is because he fought against the banking and financial sewer that has always oppressed Africa.
Wikileaks have strengthened the anti-NATO sentiment in Italy...and many are transforming people like Assad, Nasser and Gaddafi into heroes.
Almost all Nine Eleven terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.
Today we know Saudi Deep State was behind Nine Eleven. At Least Two Saudi Officials May Have Deliberately Assisted 9/11 Hijackers, New Evidence Suggests
But the United States roll red carpets at Saudi Arabia and hates the enemies of Saudi Arabia: Gaddafi...Assad.
I think all this is:
A) Stockolm Syndrome
B) unhinged
C) masochistic
D) illogical
E) suicidal
Libya used to be the most westernized Arabic-speaking state...also thanks to Italians.
They didn't hate the US at all.
But their opinion matters.
Hardly. I still remember when Putin visited Rome in 2019. It was a big diplomatic success.
Of course Putin is persona non grata in London...but Britain is not a member of the EU any more.
Click Settings (in the video), then Subtitles, then Auto-Translate, and select English.
The translation is not that accurate, because AI translators are not that good...but it's very useful to understand the sense of the discussion.
I think that Americans cannot understand the socialist soul of Europe.
In Europe the high taxation on the rich doesn't incentivize people to become richer and richer.
Being middle class sometimes is perceived as much more respectable than being a billionaire.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Sure it is. It's the intent of it
When did he say he disliked his name?If he doesn't like his middle name, he can change it. It's legal.
Explain me.
Enlighten me. I cannot read your mind...I even speak another language. I need to understand what you mean.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
One "protestor" Ashli Babbitt was shot. What was Ms. Babbitt doing that police fired on her?The financial-banking sewer has been thrown out of Syria, I learnt.
It's not my fault if Syrians don't like sewer rats in their country.
In 2020 the US police killed protestors too... it was January the 6th.
Hypocrisy at its best?
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
The United States MADE Putin invade another sovereign nation killing millions?
YES.
The US Deep State paid Kiev to wage a war in Donbas against the separatists, in order to push Russians to invade to defend those separatists.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Why are you calling President Obama "His Majesty the Sultan Hussein"? Can you enlighten me with a reason that isn't based on bigotry?
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Donbas separatists? You mean the 2 million Russians that Putin sent to live there? the ones who attacked schools and hospitals killing thousands, mostly chilcren?