patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,194,244 comments by 13,886 users - AD, Ceffer, WookieMan online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 97 Next » Last » Search these comments
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 8:21am
China is doing the right thing in the middle east and Africa.
doing pay offs and supporting corruption... not the "right thing" anywhere.
yeah it is right only when you prop up your side , give them arms, weapons, and ensure they have absolute control of the country and resources and you get your cut . Oh and we can throw in a few American soldiers blood to protect that' side too and some taxpayer money.
yeah it is right only when you prop up your side , give them arms, weapons, and ensure they have absolute control of the country and resources and you get your cut . Oh and we can throw in a few American soldiers blood to protect that' side too and some taxpayer money.
No point again trying to blame the USA for the worlds problems...
Your talking about the corrupt govt of China...
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 8:36am
yeah it is right only when you prop up your side , give them arms, weapons, and ensure they have absolute control of the country and resources and you get your cut . Oh and we can throw in a few American soldiers blood to protect that' side too and some taxpayer money.
No point again trying to blame the USA for the worlds problems...
Your talking about the corrupt govt of China...
No it is you mixing up things in your usual stupid manner. Where in the world am I blaming the US for the world's problems. I am saying we need not be blamed nor be responsible for the world's problem. the shias and sunnis have been fighting before America was founded-we ain't gonna stop it. The Chinese are now the second biggest economy and have a voracious appetite for energy. They don't go around the world propping up dictatorships/spreading democracy or taking sides. They work with whoever is in power and deal. I don't see what is wrong with that-oh maybe Halliburton won't get its billions.
America needs to butt out of quarrels in strange nations and do what is good for us. Our rules, freedoms are for us and what is good in another country is good in another country. Back then we had a big enemy-the communists-the world now is not bipolar-but multi faceted. need to adapt. But corrupt thugs and bloodthirsty right wing nuts just want war, war, war.
The Chinese are now the second biggest economy and have a voracious appetite for energy. They don't go around the world propping up dictatorships/spreading democracy or taking sides. They work with whoever is in power and deal. I don't see what is wrong with that-oh maybe Halliburton won't get its billions.
Are you speaking in the absolute.. there are no regulations on their side.... they can do what ever they want. Your being naive to believe they are not creating corruption in Africa by creating a pro-Chinese groups. Yes who is in power today vs next week... where there is money there is power...
But corrupt thugs and bloodthirsty right wing nuts just want war, war, war.
There you go again...
Strategist
2014 Jun 15, 8:56am
Political correctness is the greatest weapon the fanatics have to use against us. It could also lead to our demise one day.
Yes, but I think we are likely drawing different conclusions. Moral is not a priori or axiomatic. We should protect our turf and strongly assert our values that we deem useful for our prosperity, but we should not assume moral superiority and "spread" our values like a contagious disease. Sometimes cultures simply don't mix (this is always a temporal phenomenon that comes and goes). There's enough work to do and money to spend at home.
Our moral values is the reason why they attack us. It is not compatible with theirs, and the most extreme of them are willing to die to punish us. They have done this throughout history and throughout different countries. These two value systems are just not compatible, and unable to coexist peacefully for now.
FortWayne
2014 Jun 15, 8:59am
Our moral values is the reason why they attack us.
Our moral values dictate that we have to invade everyone else. That seems very conflicting with all the others.
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:02am
Are you speaking in the absolute.. there are no regulations on their side.... they can do what ever they want. Your being naive to believe they are not creating corruption in Africa by creating a pro-Chinese groups. Yes who is in power today vs next week... where there is money there is power...
There you go again...
There is no fixing stupid.
Strategist
2014 Jun 15, 9:04am
But corrupt thugs and bloodthirsty right wing nuts just want war, war, war.
This is the passionate outburst that worries me. No one wants war, no one. There is a difference of opinion on how to prevent future wars. Yours is a very naive belief that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. I would hold this logic responsible for not stopping Hitler in time resulting in the most destructive war to date. We don't need an even more destructive war of nuclear weapons.
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:12am
This is the passionate outburst that worries me. No one wants war, no one. There is a difference of opinion on how to prevent future wars. Yours is a very naive belief that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. I would hold this logic responsible for not stopping Hitler in time resulting in the most destructive war to date. We don't need an even more destructive war of nuclear weapons.
Yeah typical -if somebody calls you out on your bloodthirsty ways -it worries you. You are the one calling for war against the rapists in african nations , the muslims now. yet you sit in your couch, unwilling to go to war and just feeling all good while young Americans get blown up. What worries me is bloodthirsty folks on both sides of the spectrum who want to war to fix social issues or other issues. They don't care one bit about the troops and think of them as disposable fixtures-as long as their pet objectives are met.
of course everything in the world is equvivalent to hitler-notwithstanding the fact that hitler was not a muslim. Europe was pretty similar tot he Arabs for a long time and they came out of it. The arabs will come out of it when they have had enough. As long as they are not threatening us-none of our concern. When the attacked us, Bush let the perprators go and instead attacked a country not related to the 9/11 attacks.
But hey history, local conditions/culture does not matter-lets just go to war then claim no one wants war-while calling for war. Oh the shock -someone is calling me out on my bloodthirsty ways-how un-American.
No one wants war, no one.
that right.. a war is big and bloody !
its better to kill a few bad people or wipe out a small group which would create destabilization.. and later escalate to large scale war.
Your better off killing the Hitlers/Pol Pot and their few followers in early years vs 100 Million dead...
They don't care one bit about the troops and think of them as disposable fixtures-as long as their pet objectives are met.
yo ! we have professions soldiers who sign up ... they were not drafted or conscripts.. they train for such tasks of their free will...
frankly the best US commanders we have seen have been life savers....again your being naive..
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:18am
yo ! we have professions soldiers who sign up ... they were not drafted or conscripts.. they train for such tasks of their free will...
frankly the best US commanders we have seen have been life savers....again your being naive..
They sign up to defend this great nation. not be drawn into endless wars that have no possible valid reason.Yup they sign up -so it is ok for them to be killed and blown up for stupid reasons-compassion is never been your strong point But hey logic, reasoning , common sense has never been your strong point either.
Strategist
2014 Jun 15, 9:20am
No one wants war, no one.
that right.. a war is big and bloody !
its better to kill a few bad people or wipe out a small group which would create destabilization.. and later escalate to large scale war.
Your better off killing the Hitlers/Pol Pot and their few followers in early years vs 100 Million dead...
And Bashar Assad, Iranian regime, N. Korean Kim, Kaddafi.
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:25am
And Bashar Assad, Iranian regime, N. Korean Kim, Kaddafi.
How many of our soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of them. Then how many more soldiers are you willing to be killed/maimed to get rid of the ruthless Taliban/al-queda types that come to take their place. Are you willing to go there-send you children and friends there?? or do you work for Halliburton salivating at the big bonuses you will get if we are at war with multiple countries???
When the attacked us, Bush let the perprators go and instead attacked a country not related to the 9/11 attacks.
A separate issue... no one stated they were connected except a few uninformed here on Patnet.
The liberals have been pushing the issue of Iraq WMD long before Bush came to office. You can go back as far as mid 90s and Gores and Dems comments. Or are you a hypocrite and cant recall recent history.
Strategist
2014 Jun 15, 9:26am
The arabs will come out of it when they have had enough. As long as they are not threatening us-none of our concern.
What?? What do you think 911 and Al Qaeda was? How many times do we feel the brunt of terrorism without realizing it's the radical Muslim fanatics. The Iranian regime is not developing nukes to put in a museum.
Pre emptive strikes are self defense and nothing else. If we got rid of Assad 3 years ago, 170,000 to date would have been saved. Look at Libya, we helped overthrow Khaddafi and I certainly don't see 170,000 people dying in the aftermath there.
"yo ! we have professions soldiers who sign up ... they were not drafted or conscripts.. they train for such tasks of their free will..."
Soldiers sign up with the belief that politicians will do the will of the people (or that they will receive a regular paycheck and be able to support their family.)
Soldiers are required by the Geneva Conventions to disobey unlawful orders. However, an order might appear lawful even though it is an unlawful conflict. Soldiers don't have protection against this sort of thing.
It is up to the populace to prevent unlawful conflicts, setting the ground work for soldier to resist unlawful orders. Interpret this post in the context of the above.
They sign up to defend this great nation. not be drawn into endless wars that have no possible valid reason.Yup they sign up -so it is ok for them to be killed and blown up for stupid reasons-compassion is never been your strong point But hey logic, reasoning , common sense has never been your strong point eithe
YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR OUR TROOPS ..... YOU do not have the reasons why they signed up... There are many who fought who disagree with you and are proud of their service.. Stop being a idiot!
Strategist
2014 Jun 15, 9:28am
And Bashar Assad, Iranian regime, N. Korean Kim, Kaddafi.
How many of our soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of them. Then how many more soldiers are you willing to be killed/maimed to get rid of the ruthless Taliban/al-queda types that come to take their place. Are you willing to go there-send you children and friends there?? or do you work for Halliburton salivating at the big bonuses you will get if we are at war with multiple countries???
Silly question.
How many 60 million people are you willing to watch die?
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:28am
When the attacked us, Bush let the perprators go and instead attacked a country not related to the 9/11 attacks.
A separate issue... no one stated they were connected except a few uninformed here on Patnet.
The liberals have been pushing the issue of Iraq WMD long before Bush came to office. You can go back as far as mid 90s and Gores and Dems comments. Or are you a hypocrite and cant recall recent history.
One can push and say anything you want-that is politics. But the one who acted and sent troops there was Bush-not the liberals. Unlike you if OBozo the clown sent troops in the ground to Iraq now -I would be railing against him. But hey talking to you is like talking to a tape recorder.
How many of our soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of them. Then how many more soldiers are you willing to be killed/maimed to get rid of the ruthless Taliban/al-queda types that come to take their place. Are you willing to go there-send you children and friends there??
No one is asking YOU.. if you dont like it.. than dont sign up.. there are plenty others who WILL SIGN UP and WILL FIGHT regardless how much a pacifist you are..
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:31am
Silly question.
How many 60 million people are you willing to watch die?
That is not a silly question. . Never take a risk, never get involved personally, let others die-but always compare a pet issue/conflict to the Holocaust. That is a sick attitude.
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:32am
How many of our soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of them. Then how many more soldiers are you willing to be killed/maimed to get rid of the ruthless Taliban/al-queda types that come to take their place. Are you willing to go there-send you children and friends there??
No one is asking YOU.. if you dont like it.. than dont sign up.. there are plenty others who WILL SIGN UP and WILL FIGHT regardless how much a pacifist you are..
I am not a pacifist, but a realist. of course that will fly by your silly belief system.
One can push and say anything you want-that is politics. But the one who acted and sent troops there was Bush-not the liberals. Unlike you if OBozo the clown sent troops in the ground to Iraq now -I would be railing against him. But hey talking to you is like talking to a tape recorder.
We would have invaded had Gore been President anyway. He has been pushing for getting rid of Saddam since the 90s..
Again you are short on memory.... The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.
pick any video you want.. there are lots of Gore comments calling taking out Saddam one way or another for over 10 years. Long long before Bush ever considered being president.
I am not a pacifist, but a realist. of course that will fly by your silly belief system.
Your an idiot short on memory!
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:36am
Your excuse for Bush invading Iraq is -Gore would have done it anyways?? Sheesh. In the world of reality, people deal with what happened, not someone a while ago might have said something. If gore did it I would have been against it too-but he didn't.
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:39am
I am not a pacifist, but a realist. of course that will fly by your silly belief system.
Your an idiot short on memory!
Coming from you -that is a badge of honor. You are the resident clown on patnet, who provides endless amusement by exposing the depths of human stupidity.
Your excuse for Bush invading Iraq is -Gore would have done it anyways?? Sheesh. In the world of reality, people deal with what happened, not someone awhile ago might have if gore did it I would have been against it too-but he didn't.
You truly are Lost and Confused... Syria, Iraq, and Libya, soviet client, all terrorist sponsored states backing "world liberation" movements have been seeking to create their own "Muslim Bomb"... they been at it since the 60s. So dont be so naive as to think we in the west wouldnt have stepped in eventually.
To you all this is new news...
"Four countries in the Middle East have been found in non-compliance with their IAEA safeguards obligations under the NPT: Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Syria. Of these cases, Iran and Syria remain unresolved."
GC(35)/RES/568 - Iraq's non-compliance with its safegaurds ...
www.iaea.org/.../gc35res-568_en.p...
International Atomic Energy Agency
Sep 20, 1991 - (b) Deploring Iraq's non-compliance with its safeguards obligations with the IAEA and violation of its obligat ions under the Treaty on the.
Coming from you -that is a badge of honor. You are the resident clown on patnet, who provides endless amusement by exposing the depths of human stupidity.
We have to die because of your stupidity...Cleary you never read my links to get the facts. ... but thats typical of pacifists.. they think they come from a higher ground... laughable since they are just cowards.
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:49am
Coming from you -that is a badge of honor. You are the resident clown on patnet, who provides endless amusement by exposing the depths of human stupidity.
We have to die because of your stupidity...
no that is not new to me. but what is new to me is your idea of safety. Replacing these countries' leadership with al-queda types. because that is who is replacing the states where we have interfered. But to you having al-queda in charge of a possibly nuclear armed state is safe? LOL.
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 9:51am
Cleary you never read my links to get the facts. ... but thats typical of pacifists.. they think they come from a higher ground... laughable since they are just cowards.
facts what facts-that Bush invaded Iraq. Your "fact" is gore might have invaded anyways-that is your fact. Sigh...Thomas you outdo yourself everytime.
Thomas said:
"YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR OUR TROOPS ..... YOU do not have the reasons why they signed up... There are many who fought who disagree with you and are proud of their service.."
The rationale for signing up is irrelevant. Once a soldier signs on, they have a duty to support the current government whether they agree with it or not. No one should assume anything about any soldier's attitude.
lostand confused said:
"Your excuse for Bush invading Iraq is -Gore would have done it anyways??"
I which case the soldiers would get on with it. That is the role.
lostand confused
2014 Jun 15, 10:01am
Your excuse for Bush invading Iraq is -Gore would have done it anyways??"
I which case the soldiers would get on with it. That is the role.
Yes they should . That is a soldier's role-to fight and risk life and limb. Not stop in the middle of the battlefield and ask philosophical questions. But I think since they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, we as a nation should be careful of putting them in that position-that we should be careful and considerate when we ask them to make that sacrifice and not treat them like disposable fixtures.
On that issue , I think Obozo is actually much better and does not put soldiers in harms way for stupid reasons.
facts what facts-that Bush invaded Iraq. Your "fact" is gore might have invaded anyways-that is your fact. Sigh...Thomas you outdo yourself everytime.
It was bound to happen.. be it Libya Syria or Iraq.. it has been in the making since the 1960s when they all became pro terrorist states seeking
nuclear weapons..
this all must be news to you...
lostand confused says:
"Not stop in the middle of the battlefield and ask philosophical questions. But I think since they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, we as a nation should be careful of putting them in that position...'
'Soldiers have a duty to protect the populace from enemies of the state.' I said that (and probably ripped it off from someone of more historical importance), and I think it is generally accepted? 'The populace has a duty to protect the soldiers from the state.' My thought as well, and also might be plagiarized.
Strategist
2014 Jun 16, 2:20am
Even though there are no WMD. Why?
Because there is oil there. Duh.
If it was really oil we would never have left.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 97 Next » Last » Search these comments
Even though there are no WMD. Why?
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/14/hagel-orders-us-aircraft-carrier-to-persian-gulf/20912607/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cresponsive-test1%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D488689