You're using an old fashioned definition of warzone. There doesn't need to be an official war for a place to be a warzone. I would call much of Mexico a warzone right now.
I'm not trying to justify it. What I am saying is that it's odd that you seem to care more about these people because they were Americans than you do for the dozens of innocent Afghans who've died just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. My impression is that you care more about legality than morality.
What would you call this "new fashion" definition? Sounds like a load of bullshit to justify it, and that is what you're doing.
Whats with jumping to conlusions by you assuming I care more about these people than those people? When have I ever expressed that for you to come to that conclusion? I've been openly against our bombing in all countries. That was a very stupid assumption. Very strawman as well.
Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm pretty sure they were quite happy to get rid of the Soviets
The Afghans want the Taliban back due to the instability and lawlessness of their country
GOP H.W. Bush thing
And I suppose the Democrats in congress are blameless?
Blame the GOP
Your answer if an asteroid hits the earth
. Also the 90's wars in the Middle East were manly cause by H.W Bush
Again the Democrats in congress are blameless....yes sir!
I agree. Genocides like the one in Rwanda, Libya, and now potentially Syria should be stopped .
Ok, let China, the emerging world power (who we are making so), stop them.
Pretty sure you're talking about Yugoslavia again right? Again, would you rather have let Milosevic carry on with his war rape?
Like I said, not our problem
Let's see. We were fine under Clinton, then Bush scammed his way into office, phucked everything up with his Halliburton war (we caught Saddam, but then stayed?) amongst other things, and then when economic reforms were attempted to be made by the following administration, the spiteful GOP Congress shot it all down and held our economy hostage. Am I missing anything?
You assign too much credit/blame to the economy to the president.
The US was doing well econimically during the 90s primarily due to the technology boom. If you want to credit Bill then credit Bill Gates. Many of those jobs have now gone to China and iIndia. It was Clinton that signed NAFTA and GATT into law making it easier to ship jobs out of the country and above all, it was Clinton who signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which dereglutated the financial sector and was the primary cause of the current financial crisis.
Do you know what creates a higher death toll? Genocide [/B]
Well, at least we agree on something
Originally posted by Mairuzu
What would you call this "new fashion" definition? Sounds like a load of bullshit to justify it, and that is what you're doing.
Whats with jumping to conlusions by you assuming I care more about these people than those people? When have I ever expressed that for you to come to that conclusion? I've been openly against our bombing in all countries. That was a very stupid assumption. Very strawman as well.
It's not really a strawman if I say that it's my impression--it would be a strawman if I was trying to convince someone else that this is your position, not remark on my perceptions of your argument. Calm down, you sound angry.
Off-topic digression: you use very too much. Vary up your sentences. biscuits
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not justifying it. I'm saying that Al-Malaki wasn't an innocent man. It was still illegal, and possibly immoral, but I'll shed no tears over that man. His son is a stronger argument against drone strikes, but not the best. I think all in all opponents of drone strikes need to get off the Al-Malaki case and turn their attention to the blatantly brutal cases of collateral damage in Afghanistan.
why? because the government says, but wont substantiate, the claim he was dangerous?
Originally posted by Omega VisionYou were justifying it. What did he commit? Speech crimes?
I'm not justifying it. I'm saying that Al-Malaki wasn't an innocent man. It was still illegal, and possibly immoral, but I'll shed no tears over that man. His son is a stronger argument against drone strikes, but not the best. I think all in all opponents of drone strikes need to get off the Al-Malaki case and turn their attention to the blatantly brutal cases of collateral damage in Afghanistan.
Cool, I believe they are all good reasons. This is more of a jab toward Obama and not simply an issue about drone strikes if you payed attention to what I was responding to.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's not really a strawman if I say that it's my impression--it would be a strawman if I was trying to convince someone else that this is your position, not remark on my perceptions of your argument. Calm down, you sound angry.
There are others in here. Its an open forum and it was still a horrible assumption. VERY horrible. Very. Oh shit im using very too much again, only one very is the limit? ><
Such mediocre jabs at me lol. When it doubt, call the other person angry, and if they use one word more than once, call them out on it too!
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
You assign too much credit/blame to the economy to the president.
The US was doing well econimically during the 90s primarily due to the technology boom. If you want to credit Bill then credit Bill Gates. Many of those jobs have now gone to China and iIndia. It was Clinton that signed NAFTA and GATT into law making it easier to ship jobs out of the country and above all, it was Clinton who signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which dereglutated the financial sector and was the primary cause of the current financial crisis.
I concede here
for as much of a boom as you want to remember those times as, it was an unprecedented period of globalization and a very important part of why the manufacturing sector no longer exists in America.
Clinton was great for week-to-week or month-to-month job numbers, he did nothing to reshape the American economy for the new global reality that now makes it entirely uncompetitive.
Originally posted by Oliver North
for as much of a boom as you want to remember those times as, it was an unprecedented period of globalization and a very important part of why the manufacturing sector no longer exists in America.Clinton was great for week-to-week or month-to-month job numbers, he did nothing to reshape the American economy for the new global reality that now makes it entirely uncompetitive.
Holy shit. Bill Clinton (and by that extension Hillary) is lucky as phuck that nobody realizes this entire thing is his fault. I'm actually feeling like bad for the amount of hatred I had towards Bush.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Holy shit. Bill Clinton (and by that extension Hillary) is lucky as [b]phuck that nobody realizes this entire thing is his fault. I'm actually feeling like bad for the amount of hatred I had towards Bush. [/B]
...
actually, the point is that these types of limited "blame X" politics are useless in addressing the real issues that face America.
Clinton can't be blamed any more than anyone else. Hell, if you are looking to blame someone (which you shouldn't be), blame India and China for modernizing and providing cheap labour for American consumers.
OK. Just let me know if I'm right here.
Corporate CEOs are able to exude massive influence because Corporate profits are at an all time high, while corporate tax rates are at an all time low
Obama's democratic administration continues to press "lowering the corporate tax rate" (which is right now at an all-time low virtually nothing), which basically allows these CEOs to retain their profits
However, while Corporate profits are at an all-time high, wages here in America are at an all-time low. This is because there are no jobs here. They are all outsourced overseas
This is because Bill Clinton signed North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs in 1993, which allowed corporations to take their manufacturing needs to other countries for far cheaper labor. We didn't pat attention to it at the time because America, along with the rest of the world was undergoing vast economic prosperity over roughly the last decade thanks to the technological boom, spearheaded by Bill Gates and Microsoft. The events of 9/11 and the following wars also diverted our attention. What we didn't notice was that our manufacturing sector was suffering a major loss, because the corporations were outsourcing so many jobs to countries who would work for farrrrr cheaper prices.
This is the cause of the massive gap between corporate profits and worker profits. Corporations and their billionaire CEOs are able to make more money than ever because they don't have to worry about losing it either to workers, because they were allowed to outsource jobs and thus exploit cheap labor for profit, or taxes, as they seem to have both political parties in their pocket (due to having ever-increasing profits from their cheap labor), as both Obama and Romney agreed that our corporate tax rate was too high (again a lie, as it's virtually nothing) and Obama is willing to raise tax rates on families before tax rates on corporations.
Corporations are the gunpowder though. The spark was lit by Clinton in 1998. when he repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. This allowed central banks which are supposed to be safe, due to handling personal accounts) to merge with investment banks (high risk due to handling investments). This high-risk banking led to the recession and bailout
Originally posted by Oliver North
...actually, the point is that these types of limited "blame X" politics are useless in addressing the real issues that face America.
Clinton can't be blamed any more than anyone else. Hell, if you are looking to blame someone (which you shouldn't be), blame India and China for modernizing and providing cheap labour for American consumers.
How much would you say 9/11 and the resulting wars contributed the financial crisis? How did the profit of the military-industrial-complex, through a massive military budget, contribute, compared to the manufacturing sector job loss and bank crisis?