or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What is Wrong in America?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is Wrong in America?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/17834-thanks-to-fracking-u-s-will-pass-saudi-arabia-in-oil-production

 

The U.S. is getting ready to become the biggest producer of oil in the world, and gas here is still near record highs.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433442474053878

 

Even when people manage to keep a job, they are getting fewer paid hours at those jobs. This is of course within the context of the remaining participants in the job market who haven't given up looking for work.

 

Then we have an administration/party that is calling cancer patients and heart attack survivors liars and cheats who don't really exist in the first place. This is of course not even fconsidering the additional 2 million lost jobs the legislation is predicted to cause.

 

My point is where is the outrage? Has it been bought into submission? Are the record number of food stamp recipients just content to get their card, buy what they can and then no aspire to anything better anymore?

 

We have record national debt. A complete lack of real economic recovery, record increases in medical costs, massive new gas and oil production but no lowering of cost for consumers, etc.

 

Where is the outrage?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 23

Perhaps the disadvantaged are too busy being outraged about higher food and rent cost. They gave up buying petrol a long time ago. People who need to drive just cut back in other areas because the minor fluctuation in at the pump can make little difference in their day to day lives. Up a penny down a penny, who really understands the mechanisms behind it all?

 

What worries me is the USA / Russia stand off over Ukraine. Personally I don't care about that area of the world but I understand that if you give Russia an inch they will take a mile, so I suppose we need to at least make our displeasue known.. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #3 of 23

Where are you looking for outrage and not finding it? Regarding the cost of fossil fuel products, they're still higher in many other countries. I'm not sure what you would do to massively influence pricing on a globally traded commodity.

post #4 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Perhaps the disadvantaged are too busy being outraged about higher food and rent cost. They gave up buying petrol a long time ago. People who need to drive just cut back in other areas because the minor fluctuation in at the pump can make little difference in their day to day lives. Up a penny down a penny, who really understands the mechanisms behind it all?

 

What worries me is the USA / Russia stand off over Ukraine. Personally I don't care about that area of the world but I understand that if you give Russia an inch they will take a mile, so I suppose we need to at least make our displeasue known..

 

If you understand that about Russia, then I put your understanding ahead of the current president of the United States.

 

Here in the U.S. the media has declared that anyone who considered Russia a problem was a 'relic of the 80's' and a 'warmonger' who wanted to stir up trouble to keep the U.S. military busy and well-funded. We were told that with President Obama has his empathy model that the world would become a calmer place and the U.S. would be more respected. Turns out Iran is still trying to go nuclear, Russia is still Russia, etc.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

Where are you looking for outrage and not finding it? Regarding the cost of fossil fuel products, they're still higher in many other countries. I'm not sure what you would do to massively influence pricing on a globally traded commodity.

 

Well we were told that wars in the Middle East were driving up the cost and also lack of domestic production. Finally there was the fact that there was an 'oil man' in the White House.

 

Those variables have largely been altered and the price is still the same. The critics who claimed the prior issues were the problem should be discredited.

 

Finally though people used to be upset when they were un or underemployed. They used to be upset when they couldn't afford heating oil.

 

You still hear the rhetoric. The policies have changed but the outcomes haven't. Those who declared we were warmongers and that there was a war on the poor don't seem too upset when there is still a war and the poor are even worse off than before.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/17834-thanks-to-fracking-u-s-will-pass-saudi-arabia-in-oil-production

 

The U.S. is getting ready to become the biggest producer of oil in the world, and gas here is still near record highs.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433442474053878

 

Even when people manage to keep a job, they are getting fewer paid hours at those jobs. This is of course within the context of the remaining participants in the job market who haven't given up looking for work.

 

Then we have an administration/party that is calling cancer patients and heart attack survivors liars and cheats who don't really exist in the first place. This is of course not even fconsidering the additional 2 million lost jobs the legislation is predicted to cause.

 

My point is where is the outrage? Has it been bought into submission? Are the record number of food stamp recipients just content to get their card, buy what they can and then no aspire to anything better anymore?

 

We have record national debt. A complete lack of real economic recovery, record increases in medical costs, massive new gas and oil production but no lowering of cost for consumers, etc.

 

Where is the outrage?

 

Hey bud.  Long time.  Anyway, what's wrong, you ask?  I think a lot of it comes from a lack of leadership.  Specifically, whether one agrees or disagrees with the President on the issues, there's no question that he's not exactly the best spokesperson for America.   Part of this is his view that America is too powerful and too influential.  He views us an empire that needs to be knocked down a few pegs.  He almost never espouses the greatness of America.  He doesn't make people feel good about America's past, much less its future.   He honestly believes what he says...we consume too much of the world's resources.  We eat too much, drive too much, and buy too much.   When asked about this concept directly, he gives the same disconnected, ho-hum, "I'm above this crap" type of response.   He's worried about "real" problems, like how the rich make too much money.  

 

In any case, his constant, exhausting partisan rhetoric coupled with with the very real problems we have (as you noted) result in a populace that just is just tired.   Not all or even most of these problems are his fault.  Rather, it's the way he's addressed them (or, in some cases, ignored them and/or made them worse).   People are just exhausted.  There is government scandal and incompetence at every turn.  The economy is going about 35 mph in a 70 mph zone.  America is under attack--literally and figuratively-everywhere.  Obama is not respected on the world stage, and most people know it.  Obama isn't respected, and so America is not respected.  Hell, we don't even respect ourselves.  I think there is just this sense that maybe things are too far gone.  I myself wonder this from time to time.   

 

To reverse this, I think we need a totally different kind of leader.  We need a President dedicated to rebuilding America...not by overhauling it's healthcare system and going on apology tours, but by standing up for the idea of America at home and abroad.   We certainly don't have that leader now.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Well we were told that wars in the Middle East were driving up the cost and also lack of domestic production. Finally there was the fact that there was an 'oil man' in the White House.

 

Those variables have largely been altered and the price is still the same. The critics who claimed the prior issues were the problem should be discredited.

 

Finally though people used to be upset when they were un or underemployed. They used to be upset when they couldn't afford heating oil.

 

You still hear the rhetoric. The policies have changed but the outcomes haven't. Those who declared we were warmongers and that there was a war on the poor don't seem too upset when there is still a war and the poor are even worse off than before.

 

 

I suspect you're a perfectly reasonable person, yet your responses are abstract enough to make it difficult to respond with anything meaningful. The wars in the Middle East were a problem. They created uncertainty, which drives speculation. As you know oil is a commodity item, so speculation does play a role. The role of the government is indirect there. They may have an effect on policy, yet they can't dictate gas prices.

 

Regarding the "oil man" in office at the time, do you mean Cheney? He was the one accused of corruption due to ties to Haliburton. As far as outrage, where are you looking for it? There are plenty of dissatisfied individuals. You almost sound like you miss the mob mentality, yet I don't think it's fair to assume that. You just seem dissatisfied in general with the overall state of things. The only thing I really question is how you attribute it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

Hey bud.  Long time.  Anyway, what's wrong, you ask?  I think a lot of it comes from a lack of leadership.  Specifically, whether one agrees or disagrees with the President on the issues, there's no question that he's not exactly the best spokesperson for America.   Part of this is his view that America is too powerful and too influential.  He views us an empire that needs to be knocked down a few pegs.  He almost never espouses the greatness of America.  He doesn't make people feel good about America's past, much less its future.   He honestly believes what he says...we consume too much of the world's resources.  We eat too much, drive too much, and buy too much.   When asked about this concept directly, he gives the same disconnected, ho-hum, "I'm above this crap" type of response.   He's worried about "real" problems, like how the rich make too much money.  


Your posts genuinely puzzle me much more than those of trumpetman. You're focused on a figurehead here, yet you ignore that an administration is much more than a president. They are figureheads. They have a team of advisers and staff, as no one person could deal with that number of issues. What I really don't understand is why you care if someone tells everyone that the nation is great. I always felt that was a misdirection to distract a large enough number of people within the nation from real problems. Telling them we're great doesn't improve upon anything. It's just arrogance, and it doesn't encourage further improvement. Saying we consume too much of the world's resources is something different. I'm not familiar with the quote. Given the opportunity for a vast audience, if I wanted to make such a point, I would focus on where we could make real improvement. To not focus on what we could do collectively is just a squandered opportunity. When you have that much verbal influence over a given population, you have at least some opportunity to influence people at a cultural level. I think he could have done a better job in that regard. The administration as a whole had an opportunity to fix some of the crap dealt to us by the prior one, yet they just followed in its steps.

post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Well we were told that wars in the Middle East were driving up the cost and also lack of domestic production. Finally there was the fact that there was an 'oil man' in the White House.

 

Those variables have largely been altered and the price is still the same. The critics who claimed the prior issues were the problem should be discredited.

 

Finally though people used to be upset when they were un or underemployed. They used to be upset when they couldn't afford heating oil.

 

You still hear the rhetoric. The policies have changed but the outcomes haven't. Those who declared we were warmongers and that there was a war on the poor don't seem too upset when there is still a war and the poor are even worse off than before.

 

 

I suspect you're a perfectly reasonable person, yet your responses are abstract enough to make it difficult to respond with anything meaningful. The wars in the Middle East were a problem. They created uncertainty, which drives speculation. As you know oil is a commodity item, so speculation does play a role. The role of the government is indirect there. They may have an effect on policy, yet they can't dictate gas prices.

 

Regarding the "oil man" in office at the time, do you mean Cheney? He was the one accused of corruption due to ties to Haliburton. As far as outrage, where are you looking for it? There are plenty of dissatisfied individuals. You almost sound like you miss the mob mentality, yet I don't think it's fair to assume that. You just seem dissatisfied in general with the overall state of things. The only thing I really question is how you attribute it.

 

Were a problem? Has the Middle East stopped being a problem? That is the point. When has there been certainty in the Middle East? That said the U.S. is producing much more oil so aspects of that speculation should be less relevant than before.

 

The role of government is indirect in terms of day to day pricing but direct in terms of oil leases, regulation, taxation, etc. They can dictate a lot and control quite a bit. In the U.S. a major pipeline to move oil has not been approved as a recent example. The higher costs associated with now moving that oil are passed on. In California additional gas taxes were passed which raised prices. The people don't seem to recall this and blame the companies. The collective amnesia is a bit disturbing.

 

For the oil man, no I mean George W. Bush. No Blood for Oil, out of Texas, went to war to get the oil in Iraq, owned an oil company Bush. Are you part of the collective amnesia? How could someone forget what was claimed and attributed to him as president?

 

As for missing a mob mentality, a mob is unthinking. I'm not acting people to just react to emotion. The suffering out there has been long, drawn out and clearly can be thought about and acted on at this stage. Instead, much like your post, people repeat a few talking points and then turn off their brains and go back to the collective suffering. Oil prices at $4 in the past. It is evil Republican Oil men starting wars so their cronies can get rich by exploiting the poor. Oil at $4 now. It is just market forces and the president can't and never could do anything about them.

 

One of those two statements doesn't compute.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

Were a problem? Has the Middle East stopped being a problem? That is the point. When has there been certainty in the Middle East? That said the U.S. is producing much more oil so aspects of that speculation should be less relevant than before.

 

I didn't mean to imply that.

 

Quote:

The role of government is indirect in terms of day to day pricing but direct in terms of oil leases, regulation, taxation, etc. They can dictate a lot and control quite a bit. In the U.S. a major pipeline to move oil has not been approved as a recent example. The higher costs associated with now moving that oil are passed on. In California additional gas taxes were passed which raised prices. The people don't seem to recall this and blame the companies. The collective amnesia is a bit disturbing.

 

If you mean keystone, which was to refine tar sands, most of that would go to exports. Several others were approved though. I'm aware of California's gas taxes and some of the additional regulations here. I was using pricing here as an example, but we have recently experienced higher nationwide pricing.

 

Quote:

For the oil man, no I mean George W. Bush. No Blood for Oil, out of Texas, went to war to get the oil in Iraq, owned an oil company Bush. Are you part of the collective amnesia? How could someone forget what was claimed and attributed to him as president?

Cheney was CEO of an oil company right before taking office. Bush's primary occupation right before that was the role of Texas governor. See why I thought you meant Cheney?
 

Quote:

As for missing a mob mentality, a mob is unthinking. I'm not acting people to just react to emotion. The suffering out there has been long, drawn out and clearly can be thought about and acted on at this stage. Instead, much like your post, people repeat a few talking points and then turn off their brains and go back to the collective suffering. Oil prices at $4 in the past. It is evil Republican Oil men starting wars so their cronies can get rich by exploiting the poor. Oil at $4 now. It is just market forces and the president can't and never could do anything about them.

 

One of those two statements doesn't compute.

 

That hostility seems a little unnecessary. Those weren't supposed to be talking points. I was just having a difficult time responding as you  keep things somewhat abstract wanting to complain about things such as perceived general attitudes with odd anecdotes thrown in. The clarity isn't there, so it's difficult to respond.

post #9 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

Were a problem? Has the Middle East stopped being a problem? That is the point. When has there been certainty in the Middle East? That said the U.S. is producing much more oil so aspects of that speculation should be less relevant than before.

 

I didn't mean to imply that.

 

Well if a variable hasn't changed, then why is it considered? The point is that the Middle East has never been particularly stable.

 

Quote:

Quote:

The role of government is indirect in terms of day to day pricing but direct in terms of oil leases, regulation, taxation, etc. They can dictate a lot and control quite a bit. In the U.S. a major pipeline to move oil has not been approved as a recent example. The higher costs associated with now moving that oil are passed on. In California additional gas taxes were passed which raised prices. The people don't seem to recall this and blame the companies. The collective amnesia is a bit disturbing.

 

If you mean keystone, which was to refine tar sands, most of that would go to exports. Several others were approved though. I'm aware of California's gas taxes and some of the additional regulations here. I was using pricing here as an example, but we have recently experienced higher nationwide pricing.

 

I don't mean just a new pipeline. The point is that government controls many aspects of production via regulation be it land leases, how the product and also taxes paid both on said product or profits from it. The government is the biggest hand in the pot. They make even more per gallon than the actual gas and oil companies.

 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

For the oil man, no I mean George W. Bush. No Blood for Oil, out of Texas, went to war to get the oil in Iraq, owned an oil company Bush. Are you part of the collective amnesia? How could someone forget what was claimed and attributed to him as president?

Cheney was CEO of an oil company right before taking office. Bush's primary occupation right before that was the role of Texas governor. See why I thought you meant Cheney?

 

No I don't see why you thought that. No one was screaming "No Blood for Oil" related to Cheney. It was related to Bush. Bush was president. Just like today no one is sweating Joe Biden.

 

 
Quote:
Quote:

As for missing a mob mentality, a mob is unthinking. I'm not acting people to just react to emotion. The suffering out there has been long, drawn out and clearly can be thought about and acted on at this stage. Instead, much like your post, people repeat a few talking points and then turn off their brains and go back to the collective suffering. Oil prices at $4 in the past. It is evil Republican Oil men starting wars so their cronies can get rich by exploiting the poor. Oil at $4 now. It is just market forces and the president can't and never could do anything about them.

 

One of those two statements doesn't compute.

 

That hostility seems a little unnecessary. Those weren't supposed to be talking points. I was just having a difficult time responding as you  keep things somewhat abstract wanting to complain about things such as perceived general attitudes with odd anecdotes thrown in. The clarity isn't there, so it's difficult to respond.

 

 

The point is that the concerns and suffering from them is legitimate. Dismissal of them isn't legitimate. Millions are losing their health care. Millions are dropping off of employment rolls or and have given up even seeking employment. Billions are being borrowed by government and additionally by young people for educations that won't yield a job. All this squandered effort, energy, policies and outcomes aren't being questioned. They are just accepted. I don't understand why that happens to be.


Edited by trumptman - 3/24/14 at 9:37am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #10 of 23

I am enjoying all of the current problems, seriously I am.

 

It merely proves that certain people were right all along and others were totally clueless.

 

The American people ultimately get the govt that they deserve and that they voted for.

 

As for current world events and situations, I find them to be quite entertaining. These events taking place were all predicted a while back by those with a clue. Of course, these people were all mocked and attacked for their views. Who's laughing now?  I also find Putin to be a much stronger leader than the current weakling that is occupying the White House.

 

I am actually heading out for a doctor's appointment soon, and I do not feel sorry at all for anybody who has lost their insurance or has seen their insurance costs rise if that was what they voted for. Elections have consequences, isn't that what they say? :lol: 

 

There is more pain in store for those who deserve it soon.

post #11 of 23

What is wrong in America?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I am actually heading out for a doctor's appointment soon, and I do not feel sorry at all for anybody who has lost their insurance or has seen their insurance costs rise if that was what they voted for. 

 

This. 

 

Selfishness, shortness of view, and also an astounding willingness to destroy other countries not willing to be one of their subordinates. 

post #12 of 23

And I forget to add, a complete obedience to zionism. You can't imagine how damaging it can be.

post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

 

I suspect you're a perfectly reasonable person, yet your responses are abstract enough to make it difficult to respond with anything meaningful. The wars in the Middle East were a problem. They created uncertainty, which drives speculation. As you know oil is a commodity item, so speculation does play a role. The role of the government is indirect there. They may have an effect on policy, yet they can't dictate gas prices.

 

Regarding the "oil man" in office at the time, do you mean Cheney? He was the one accused of corruption due to ties to Haliburton. As far as outrage, where are you looking for it? There are plenty of dissatisfied individuals. You almost sound like you miss the mob mentality, yet I don't think it's fair to assume that. You just seem dissatisfied in general with the overall state of things. The only thing I really question is how you attribute it.

 
Cheney was never accused of "corruption" by anyone credible.  He had no stake in Halliburton at the time.  And Halliburton was one of the few companies in the world that could do what we needed in terms of reconstruction.  

 

 

Quote:
Your posts genuinely puzzle me much more than those of trumpetman.

 

My posts?  Which ones out of the 15,000 or so?  I've been posting and debating here since January of 2000.   Somehow I don't think I'll be offended by you being "puzzled."  

 

 

Quote:
You're focused on a figurehead here, yet you ignore that an administration is much more than a president. They are figureheads. They have a team of advisers and staff, as no one person could deal with that number of issues.

 

Yes, and the tone is set from the top.  Granted, it's not just Obama.  He has assembled a real cabal of loonies, leftists and radicals.  

 

Quote:
What I really don't understand is why you care if someone tells everyone that the nation is great. I always felt that was a misdirection to distract a large enough number of people within the nation from real problems. Telling them we're great doesn't improve upon anything. It's just arrogance, and it doesn't encourage further improvement.

 

You don't understand.  I am not talking about distracting people or misdirecting them.  I am talking about consistently defending American values, the American system and The American Way.  I am talking about an unwavering belief in the basic goodness of the nation.  I am talking about communicating what most Americans believe:  we are a decent, hardworking and unique people.  I am talking about embracing and communicating ideals.  President Obama does not believe the above.  He believes that America is basically an unfair, unjust place.  He believes that we are too powerful militarily and economically.   He abhors the fact that we are a superpower.    This is obvious, and debilitating to the national psyche.  I'm not saying this trumps policy, but it is important.  

 

Quote:
Saying we consume too much of the world's resources is something different. I'm not familiar with the quote. Given the opportunity for a vast audience, if I wanted to make such a point, I would focus on where we could make real improvement. To not focus on what we could do collectively is just a squandered opportunity. When you have that much verbal influence over a given population, you have at least some opportunity to influence people at a cultural level. I think he could have done a better job in that regard. The administration as a whole had an opportunity to fix some of the crap dealt to us by the prior one, yet they just followed in its steps.

 

Which quote do you want?  And really..."collectively?"  You think the problem is Obama and his administration don't focus enough on collective action?  ROTFL.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yazolight View Post
 

 

This. 

 

Selfishness, shortness of view, and also an astounding willingness to destroy other countries not willing to be one of their subordinates. 

 

Selfishness is, in fact, the problem.  Just not the kind you're thinking of.  And who is willing to "destroy" other countries?  Sounds like you're thinking of Russia to me.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yazolight View Post
 

And I forget to add, a complete obedience to zionism. You can't imagine how damaging it can be.

 

That word you're using...I don't think you know what it means.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

Selfishness is, in fact, the problem.  Just not the kind you're thinking of.  And who is willing to "destroy" other countries?  Sounds like you're thinking of Russia to me.  

 

 

That word you're using...I don't think you know what it means.  

 

 

Please, go ahead, enlighten me. Which selfless am I thinking about, and which one is the real problem?

 

But first, let's put a few things straight. USA is bombing an average of one country every two years. Since world war 2. Usa is f*cking bombing an average of one country every 2 years. You want the list? 

 

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Irak 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011

This list might not even be complete. And it's of course not mentioning all the coup d'état the US financed and supported. Operation Ajax anyone? Putting down the elected President of Iran because you don't like him deciding how much they will sell their own oil? Wow, that's a democracy.

So talking about Russia make me laugh. 

 

As for zionism, go ahead I am ready to learn. What I see is the US supporting the last country in the world practicing the apartheid, not respecting any international law, bombing civil population in the biggest open air jail in the world, stealing land, etc. etc. in any way your turn it US is the best ally of a rogue state, nobody seems to give a sh*t about it, well that's what is wrong in America.

I also love how everything is turned upside down. Assad is a war criminal because he used chemical weapon? (one more lie, but anyway) 4 words. Agent Orange, White Phosphorus. Do you need anything else? So much hypocrisy, so much...

America (to be more precise: the american govt since... a long time) is a rogue state in the way they behave all around the world, why would you expect them to treat american citizen in any different way. That's what is wrong.

 

And since I know the OP probably only care about whats happening inside the country, I just wanna mention one thing:

You don't even have the control of your own money. 

Edited by Yazolight - 3/25/14 at 3:47pm
post #16 of 23

Just in case. I do not hate America. I actually love America, and they do have the best phone/computer company in the world :D I'm never mistaking the govt. actions and the citizens. 

post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yazolight View Post
 

 

 

Please, go ahead, enlighten me. Which selfless am I thinking about, and which one is the real problem?

 

But first, let's put a few things straight. USA is bombing an average of one country every two years. Since world war 2. Usa is f*cking bombing an average of one country every 2 years. You want the list? 

 

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Irak 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011

This list might not even be complete. And it's of course not mentioning all the coup d'état the US financed and supported. Operation Ajax anyone? Putting down the elected President of Iran because you don't like him deciding how much they will sell their own oil? Wow, that's a democracy.

So talking about Russia make me laugh. 

 

As for zionism, go ahead I am ready to learn. What I see is the US supporting the last country in the world practicing the apartheid, not respecting any international law, bombing civil population in the biggest open air jail in the world, stealing land, etc. etc. in any way your turn it US is the best ally of a rogue state, nobody seems to give a sh*t about it, well that's what is wrong in America.

I also love how everything is turned upside down. Assad is a war criminal because he used chemical weapon? (one more lie, but anyway) 4 words. Agent Orange, White Phosphorus. Do you need anything else? So much hypocrisy, so much...

America (to be more precise: the american govt since... a long time) is a rogue state in the way they behave all around the world, why would you expect them to treat american citizen in any different way. That's what is wrong.

 

And since I know the OP probably only care about whats happening inside the country, I just wanna mention one thing:

You don't even have the control of your own money. 

 

 


When you're here as long as I've been, you sort of chuckle when you see a list of US military actions presented like that. Do you think that somehow supports your ridiculous claim about the US running around "destroying" countries? Your statements about the US being a "rogue state" are equally predictable and laughable. They frankly bore me. I've seen these words written time and time again by several posters over the years. Agent Orange. Jesus.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 23

I wish you would start by explaining me then, unlike you I do not know everything. I would especially love you to develop about Agent Orange/white phosphorus, which I take for the perfect example for "double standard" which I think is extremely common in the US politics. (by double standard I mean "it's fine when the US/our ally does it, not fine when other does")

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

Do you think that somehow supports your ridiculous claim about the US running around "destroying" countries? Your statements about the US being a "rogue state" are equally predictable and laughable.

 

About destroying other countries, it can be done economically, culturally, using bombs, or a mix of the three.

How wrong and ridiculous is my claim that US destroyed Irak? (as one of the most recent example)

 

I also need you to teach me what is a rogue state.


Edited by Yazolight - 3/26/14 at 5:52pm
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yazolight View Post
 

I wish you would start by explaining me then, unlike you I do not know everything. 

 

I didn't claim I know everything.  I've just seen this movie before.  

 

 

I would especially love you to develop about Agent Orange/white phosphorus, which I take for the perfect example for "double standard" which I think is extremely common in the US politics. (by double standard I mean "it's fine when the US/our ally does it, not fine when other does")

 

 

I've concluded I have just enough energy and motivation to get into this with you.  Just enough.  

 

I am not defending the use of the compounds you've referenced.   However, they are not "chemical weapons" per se (especially the former). They are not necessarily intended to kill, though both do some nasty things if humans are exposed.   Contrast this with mustard gas, VX, botulinum toxin, etc.  They are specifically designed to kill people.  These are the types "chemical weapons" Assad was accused of using.  Now, whether or not you believe he actually did is another matter entirely.  I have my doubts, but I also think it's possible.  

 

But here's the real point:  Even if you consider our previous use of Agent Orange and other compounds (add nuclear weapons while you're at it) to be hypocritical, you're ignoring the rather obvious point that American possession of these items is not the same as say, Syrian or Iranian possession.   That's because we are not the moral equivalent of either of these countries.  These are true "rogue" states.

 

 I've heard views like yours before...that America dictates to other nations, that we do whatever we want, that we're arrogant, that we're hypocrites, that we're an empire.  The list goes on.  I've heard these views expressed by the President of the United States.  If only America would be more humble.  If only we'd step back and let others lead.  If only we'd not get so involved.  I mean, who are we, right?   The problem with all of that thinking is the very basic truth that the world is better with strong American leadership than without it.   The question is not "who are we" but "if not us, who?"   When America is weak, it leaves a power vacuum.  That vacuum will and is being filled by others.  Many of these nations are not liberal democracies at all.  Many have horrific human rights records, support terrorism, or are embracing military expansionism to re-establish a new regional hegemony (I'm looking at you, Russia).  This has been played out on the world stage over the past 5 years, from the Arab Spring, to Benghazi, to the Ukraine.  The views you espouse are held by President Obama and many in his administration.  They are sophomoric theories given credence by academia over the past 50 years.   And they've been shown to be disastrous when applied to the real world.  As several commentators have stated recently, Obama lives in foreign policy "fantasy world."   Well, reality is now smacking us in the face.  

 

 

Quote:

About destroying other countries, it can be done economically, culturally, using bombs, or a mix of the three.

How wrong and ridiculous is my claim that US destroyed Irak? (as one of the most recent example)

 

1.  Sure, it can.  But for what reasons is it done?  By that measure, the US destroyed the Soviet Union, too.  Was that wrong?  

 

2.  It's pretty absurd, actually.  Yes, we went to war with Iraq...twice.  Neither was unprovoked, though the latter was error-prone due to faulty intelligence and perhaps an overreaction of sorts to 9/11.  We certainly did lots of damage through military action, just as we and our international partners did a lot of economic damage through 10 years of sanctions.   However, it's not as if we said "hey...let's blow some crap up in Iraq."  It's not like Iraq's government was innocent.  We didn't go into Iraq for expansionism or colonialist reasons.   We also stayed for a decade to rebuild the country.   We lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars rebuilding Iraq.   You can certainly disagree that we should have gone in, but simply stating that we "destroy" countries?  Not to insult you, but that's third grade-level thinking.  

 

 

Quote:

I also need you to teach me what is a rogue state.

 

 

Yeah, it's not really my job to do that.  Understanding the real, concrete meaning of basic geopolitical terms is really your responsibility.  You should probably fulfill it before getting into discussions like this. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 23
Ok, should I answer you or this last post exhausted you to the point of breaking bad
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yazolight View Post
 

 

You've gone from boring and pedantic to babbling.  Let me know if you'd like to actually contribute to the thread.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 23

Pedantic... And you are the one saying so? Haha people will judge by themselves then. I will take your last statement as your way for saying let's keep going.

 

First about your *previous* signature, I didn't know about that movie. Found some shirt on google, didn't find that movie though. Anyway.

 

So I got your point about Agent Orange. According to your definition of what is a weapon, it makes sense. -although I do no agree with you, but let's keep it simple and stick with your definition-. So let's not call it a "chemical weapon". Then what about white phosphorus, it's an incendiary chemical compound, used by the US and Israel. Or is it also not a weapon? I'm very curious to hear what you got to say on this one.

 

Quote:
 I've heard views like yours before...that America dictates to other nations, that we do whatever we want, that we're arrogant, that we're hypocrites, that we're an empire.  The list goes on.  I've heard these views expressed by the President of the United States.  If only America would be more humble.  If only we'd step back and let others lead.  If only we'd not get so involved.  I mean, who are we, right?   The problem with all of that thinking is the very basic truth that the world is better with strong American leadership than without it.   The question is not "who are we" but "if not us, who?"   When America is weak, it leaves a power vacuum.  That vacuum will and is being filled by others.  Many of these nations are not liberal democracies at all.  Many have horrific human rights records, support terrorism, or are embracing military expansionism to re-establish a new regional hegemony (I'm looking at you, Russia).  This has been played out on the world stage over the past 5 years, from the Arab Spring, to Benghazi, to the Ukraine.  The views you espouse are held by President Obama and many in his administration.  They are sophomoric theories given credence by academia over the past 50 years.   And they've been shown to be disastrous when applied to the real world.  As several commentators have stated recently, Obama lives in foreign policy "fantasy world."   Well, reality is now smacking us in the face.  

 

I understand you are a very proud and patriotic american. That's great, patriotism is an extremely important value, and I also am very patriotic french, probably as much or even more than you are for your country. But loving your country should also mean looking the facts as they are.

So this strong american leadership makes the world a better place? Maybe. I won't argue with you on this point, only God knows. But, who is the best support in the world for dictator, terrorism and all those nation with horrific human rights record? (I'm looking at you, 'Murika). Who is the best friend and support of the al-Saoud in Saudi Arabia? The basic truth is as long as they comply with the Us govt, they can do anything they want with their people. Human's right situation is horrific there, on the contrary you should take a look on a so called "dictator", Muammar Gaddafi (may he rest in peace), where is population has (before 2011) the highest standard of life on the whole Africa. Evil is not always where you think it is.

 

Democracy seems to be an important value for you. That's great, its also the case for me.

Then what about Pinochet? Thanks to whom was he able to do his coup?

What about operation Ajax?

Is the world a better place when America is overthrowing democracies which are not of their liking to put instead dictator? Is that what you mean? And that's only 2 examples.

 

Let me tell you. If America was the leader and support of freedom, of democracy, in the facts, I would die for America. Being ally with the Saudi? I can understand the argument that you cannot overthrow all dictature. But overthrowing... elected government? How can you justify that, and say America is defending freedom and democracy?

 

Now, my point is that America is not worse than the other. But it is certainly not better than the other. 

 

Quote:
 

1.  Sure, it can.  But for what reasons is it done?  By that measure, the US destroyed the Soviet Union, too.  Was that wrong?  

 

The USSR destroyed itself, so I'm not arguing anything.

 

Quote:
 

2.  It's pretty absurd, actually.  Yes, we went to war with Iraq...twice.  Neither was unprovoked, though the latter was error-prone due to faulty intelligence and perhaps an overreaction of sorts to 9/11.  We certainly did lots of damage through military action, just as we and our international partners did a lot of economic damage through 10 years of sanctions.   However, it's not as if we said "hey...let's blow some crap up in Iraq."  It's not like Iraq's government was innocent.  We didn't go into Iraq for expansionism or colonialist reasons.   We also stayed for a decade to rebuild the country.   We lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars rebuilding Iraq.   You can certainly disagree that we should have gone in, but simply stating that we "destroy" countries?  Not to insult you, but that's third grade-level thinking.  

 

Wow. I mean, really. Wow. The 2003 war in Irak was "error prone due to faulty intelligence" and "an overreaction"... but yeah, you lost thousand of lives, spend printed money, rebuilded the country with your own companies, and after all Saddam was not completely innocent! How dare you Iraki, complaining about us! 

 

...Are you even serious? Could you try, for ONE moment, trying to figure yourself as an Iraki, seeing your country completely blowed up after 10 years of war followed by civil war, (with peace still being far away), and listening to yourself, like if they should almost thank you? Seriously? Hell yeah your bombs made a lot of damage in Irak, killing thousand over thousands of people, directly or indirectly, destroying the economy and opening an avenue for mercenaries. You lost thousand of lives and printed money? What about the iraki lives, are they less valuables than yours? You are the one who invaded that country! Could you imagine for one second your country being the one invaded?

 

Let's be clear on the vocabulary. You didn't "go" to irak. You invaded Irak. But it wasn't for expansionism or colonialist reason? Wow i'm so relieved. For what then? I do have my idea on this, and it's certainly not about "hey let's blow up some crap", even if you got a McCain who can sing "bomb bomb bomb Iran" like it's just a funny joke. No, I am perfectly aware that 1/you never do something like that without a clear purpose, 2/the given reason are never the real motive, and 3/you do have the best intelligence in the world and it certainly wasn't faulty -just needed to come up with some crap to justify their actions-. So what's your thought on the purpose for that invasion?

 

Quote:
 Yeah, it's not really my job to do that.  Understanding the real, concrete meaning of basic geopolitical terms is really your responsibility.  You should probably fulfill it before getting into discussions like this.

 

Gosh, who is talking about pedantism. Or you got a serious problem with irony.

 

Rogue State: A nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations. Oxford Dictionnary.

 

As for breaking international law, we only need to take a look at the invasion of Irak, or the USA-Israeli relationship. Not even mentioning torture, no trial secret jail, the list goes on and on and on and on.

As for posing a threat to other nation security, do I need to remind all the above? Operation Ajax, Pinochet, Irak...

 

I don't see how USA is not a rogue state according to their own definition. We need to stick to the facts.

post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yazolight View Post
 

Pedantic... And you are the one saying so? Haha people will judge by themselves then. I will take your last statement as your way for saying let's keep going.

 

First about your *previous* signature, I didn't know about that movie. Found some shirt on google, didn't find that movie though. Anyway.

 

I actually forgot that sig was up there and changed it.  The reference to "I've seen this movie before" was just slang of sorts.  I wasn't being literal.  

 

Quote:
So I got your point about Agent Orange. According to your definition of what is a weapon, it makes sense. -although I do no agree with you, but let's keep it simple and stick with your definition-. So let's not call it a "chemical weapon". Then what about white phosphorus, it's an incendiary chemical compound, used by the US and Israel. Or is it also not a weapon? I'm very curious to hear what you got to say on this one.

 

It's probably semantics at this point.  I suppose you could call it a "chemical" weapon.  Then again, you could call TNT a "chemical" weapon too. The point is it's not like using nerve gas.  Agreed?  

 

 

Quote:
I understand you are a very proud and patriotic american. That's great, patriotism is an extremely important value, and I also am very patriotic french, probably as much or even more than you are for your country. But loving your country should also mean looking the facts as they are.

 

Which I do.  But like you, I have a viewpoint.  The difference is that I acknowledge mine when making statements.  

 

Quote:
So this strong american leadership makes the world a better place? Maybe. I won't argue with you on this point, only God knows.

 

That's just ignorant.  Do I really need to give you examples of America making the world a better place?  

 

 

 

Quote:
But, who is the best support in the world for dictator, terrorism and all those nation with horrific human rights record? (I'm looking at you, 'Murika). Who is the best friend and support of the al-Saoud in Saudi Arabia? The basic truth is as long as they comply with the Us govt, they can do anything they want with their people. 

 

Now you're implying that I think America does everything right.  We certainly don't.  Of course, your issue with Saudi Arabia is presented in a simplistic manner.  Our relationship with the Saudis is much more complicated than you illustrate.  


 

Quote:

Human's right situation is horrific there, on the contrary you should take a look on a so called "dictator", Muammar Gaddafi (may he rest in peace), where is population has (before 2011) the highest standard of life on the whole Africa. Evil is not always where you think it is.

 

 

Yes, I'm well aware of the French and their feelings towards Gaddafi.  After all, you had major oil contracts with his government.  Who's in it for the oil now?  Gaddafi was supporter of terrorism until we bombed his compound and security facilities  back to the stone age in 1986.  He then turned over a new leaf after he haw Saddam Hussein get pulled out of a hole in the ground.  Yeah, great guy.  

 

Quote:

Democracy seems to be an important value for you. That's great, its also the case for me.

Then what about Pinochet? Thanks to whom was he able to do his coup?

What about operation Ajax?

Is the world a better place when America is overthrowing democracies which are not of their liking to put instead dictator? Is that what you mean? And that's only 2 examples.

 

As I said, you're implying I think those were good things...and that we never err.  Overthrowing the elected government of Iran was a serious mistake.  Installing Pinochet was at least questionable, though you should consider the way we felt about socialism and the spread of Communism (particularly in South and Central America) back in 1973.  

 

Quote:
Let me tell you. If America was the leader and support of freedom, of democracy, in the facts, I would die for America. Being ally with the Saudi? I can understand the argument that you cannot overthrow all dictature. But overthrowing... elected government? How can you justify that, and say America is defending freedom and democracy?

 

For a third time:  America makes mistakes.  It gets involved in things it shouldn't at times.  But if you look at the overall picture of the past 100 years, America has been a force for good, not evil.  World War 1.  World War 2.  Korea.  Even in Vietnam we had the right intentions.   Standing up the Soviets.  The liberation of Kuwait.  Stopping genocide in Kosovo.  Shall I go on?  

 

Quote:
Now, my point is that America is not worse than the other. But it is certainly not better than the other. 

 

It's not "better" than North Korea? Iran? Communist China?  Putin's Russia?  Come on.  This is my entire point....if America doesn't lead, they will.  You can't possibly believe that's better than American leadership.  Oh, and what about France?  I don't see your country stepping up to the plate.  Shocker.  

 

Quote:
The USSR destroyed itself, so I'm not arguing anything.

 

Right, and we had nothing to do with it.  Read a book.  

 

Quote:
Wow. I mean, really. Wow. The 2003 war in Irak was "error prone due to faulty intelligence" and "an overreaction"... but yeah, you lost thousand of lives, spend printed money, rebuilded the country with your own companies, and after all Saddam was not completely innocent! How dare you Iraki, complaining about us! 

 

Yes, it was based on faulty intelligence.  Do you disagree?  Or do you sit around sipping your bisque, talking of what a liar and idiot George Bush was?  

 

 

Quote:
...Are you even serious? Could you try, for ONE moment, trying to figure yourself as an Iraki, seeing your country completely blowed up after 10 years of war followed by civil war, (with peace still being far away), and listening to yourself, like if they should almost thank you? Seriously? Hell yeah your bombs made a lot of damage in Irak, killing thousand over thousands of people, directly or indirectly, destroying the economy and opening an avenue for mercenaries. You lost thousand of lives and printed money? What about the iraki lives, are they less valuables than yours? You are the one who invaded that country! Could you imagine for one second your country being the one invaded?

 

I'm not sure what your point here is, nor do I see the point of imagining myself as an Iraqi.  I also reject the notion that no Iraqi supported the U.S. led invasion.  Do you understand what Saddam's Iraq was like?  

 

Quote:
Let's be clear on the vocabulary. You didn't "go" to irak. You invaded Irak. But it wasn't for expansionism or colonialist reason? Wow i'm so relieved. For what then? I do have my idea on this, and it's certainly not about "hey let's blow up some crap", even if you got a McCain who can sing "bomb bomb bomb Iran" like it's just a funny joke. No, I am perfectly aware that 1/you never do something like that without a clear purpose, 2/the given reason are never the real motive, and 3/you do have the best intelligence in the world and it certainly wasn't faulty -just needed to come up with some crap to justify their actions-. So what's your thought on the purpose for that invasion?

 

OK, we invaded Iraq.  Feel better?  And no, it wasn't for colonialist reasons.  There were several reasons, but the prime one advanced was weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with resolution 1441, and had failed to verifiably disarm as he was required to do under international law.   Additionally, he had violated the terms of 1991 ceasefire agreement hundreds of times (firing on our aircraft), and was involved in the plot to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush.  He tortured his own people and supported terrorism as well.  My thoughts?  After 9/11, our government decided it wasn't going to tolerate a guy like Saddam Hussein anymore.  He wasn't involved in 9/11, but he openly praised it.  And it was clear to every intelligence organization the free world that he possessed active WMD stockpiles (including France's intel services).   The problem is that the data was wrong...dead wrong.  

 

Quote:

Gosh, who is talking about pedantism. Or you got a serious problem with irony.

 

Rogue State: A nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations. Oxford Dictionnary.

 

As for breaking international law, we only need to take a look at the invasion of Irak, or the USA-Israeli relationship. Not even mentioning torture, no trial secret jail, the list goes on and on and on and on.

As for posing a threat to other nation security, do I need to remind all the above? Operation Ajax, Pinochet, Irak...

 

I don't see how USA is not a rogue state according to their own definition. We need to stick to the facts.

 

Again, not my problem.   If you think black is white, that's fine.  I'm not here to talk you out of it.  

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What is Wrong in America?