- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 31,009
- Reaction score
- 9,029
- Location
- The Lone Star State.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Beats this crap...
We've been taking our kids to political events for years. They actually like it. Sometimes it's cool to be 12 and actually know who's running for office rather than sitting at home playing Xbox.
There's a difference between going to see a political event and being coached to do a song and dance in praise of a candidate.
No there isn't. Those kids didn't have to do that, and their parents didn't have to let them do it. They wanted to. My kids chanted "Four More Years" while Trick or Treating when they were barely out of diapers. There's nothing wrong with it. Once again, democracy is a big part of their lives based on where they live, and will be for the rest of their lives. Kids who are exposed to it younger tend to have a better understanding of it when they are older. Why again is that a bad thing?
I think the fact that your kids were chanting four more years is an indicator that it could be a bad thing.
Americans really do believe they are bringing freedom to the world. It is embarrassing to watch such Kitsch.
It almost reminded me of the propaganda shows that North Korean kids perform for the great idiot Kim Jung numb nuts.
But even more than that, these children have no idea what they are being trained to say and they will one day look back on this (most likely) and think why on earth their parents let them/pushed them in opening for the Big Buffoon the Donald.
I don't think you give these girls nearly the credit they deserve.
Not for them. They heard it said at a rally the week before. They loved it.
So you don't think kids should be educated in or participate in anything that they don't understand because they haven't had "life experience" in it? I guess that must mean you oppose them learning about gay marriage, or opposite sex marriage, or cooking, or balancing a checkbook, or marketing, or selling, or taking care of poor people, and so on.
By the way, perhaps your children "don't understand" politics. Mine do. They were exposed to it from an early age. No brainwashing. They are free to support whomever they please, when they are of age to vote. My oldest who will be voting for the first time this year told us he thinks he's voting for Sanders. We're okay with that. At least he's voting. By the way, a lot of 18 year olds DON'T vote because their parents never taught them the importance of democracy in action. We did.
Well since 2003 is not 70 years ago ypu fail.
I thought this chestnut had been put to rest some time ago. The US has never gone to war for someone's freedom, certainly not as a primary cause, ever. Nor has any other country historically, although there may be a few exceptions depending on interpretation. From Boston Common to the drone strikes in Somalia or Yemen, the only reason for war was because it was perceived, rightly or wrongly, by the powers that be at the time, to be in the nation's best interest.
The US intervened in WW2 because an axis victory would have left them in a precarious position geopolitically, if not immediately, then in the near future. A German Nazi domination of Europe and the UK and Russia, with a hostile Japan controlling much of Asia, would have been a power imbalance that was unacceptable to any US administration. This would have left vast resources and territories in the hands of truly violent and extreme regimes, at a time when technology was shrinking the world, and making the oceans much less of a barrier than they were previously. It wasn't about freedom, it was about self-interest.
Iraq 2 was seen by a group of far right strategists to be an excellent opening to establishing the US in a good position in the coming years, at a time when communism had collapsed, Russia was on the ropes, and Middle East oil was still the number one strategic interest. A stable military presence in the Persian Gulf region would have been an ace in the hole. Iraq was a good target because Saddam Hussein, at one time a US ally, had become a loose cannon. He later also became an easy target, an unfortunate set of attributes in that part of the world. It was never about freedom- the US has, and still does, support some of the most heinous regimes on the planet, if that best suits foreign policy goals. China is the US's largest trade partner, and undemocratic by most measures. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest recipients of US aid, and is non-free to the point of suggesting a good sci-fi movie. The largest receiver of foreign aid by the US is a state based on religious and ethnic dominance.
The freedom part came about in Iraq after the project fell through, and it was obvious that it was a disaster that had only remained to be rationalized and hopefully dropped as soon as possible. So freedom for the Middle East was the mantra (although not for Saudi's, particularly Saudi women, nor Palestinians, nor Egyptians, nor a number of others not then convenient to talk about). It was transparent, and today is on a downward spiral.
To be fair, if any supernatural being had descended on the State Department, and said, at any time in history, here is a magic button, you may press it for freedom throughout the world, or not, I have no doubt it would have been pressed for freedom. But the point is, this was not possible, and realpolitik was what actually happened.
Wow... Much history rewriting going on there....
Re: WWII, the US intervened because of a little thing called Pearl Harbor and a declaration of war by Germany....
But, hey, it is your story... Tell it any way you want.
Oh, BTW, Iraq a Republic or not?
Well since 2003 is not 70 years ago ypu fail.
Since we did not fight for Iraq's freedom, you fail.
Pearl Harbor was the final tipping point, but without it, the US still would have intervened in WW2, for the reasons indicated.
Iraq may be a republic, but is not a functional democracy in the western sense, nor was that the intent of the invasion, nor will it continue in the future, barring some sort of miracle.
Crystal ball much?
Iraq is a republic. And whether or not it is a "functional" democracy, it depends on your definition.
But, hey, your crystal ball is overheating.
Is Iraq a dictatorship or a or a representative republic?
Dictatorship.
Republic.
Dictatorship.
Republic.
Crystal ball much?
Iraq is a republic. And whether or not it is a "functional" democracy, it depends on your definition.
But, hey, your crystal ball is overheating.
A crystal ball has nothing to do with it. Have you ever read any history of the time? What would you have done, it the prospects were these: A crazed, genocidal, extreme regime in control of about half the economically developed world, and another crazed, genocidal, extremist regime in control of another about one quarter of the developed world, at a time when military technology was advancing such forces towards your airspace and coastal regions? That's the way it was circa 1940-41.
My definition is a true civil society, in which all can participate by rule of law, and doing so will not invite killers with AK-47's at your door. That is not the case in Iraq, and more to the point we are discussing here, it never was the original goal. The goal in Iraq was geopolitical dominance, and if you don't believe that, read up on it your self. Go to places like the American Enterprise organization,or look at others who have describes these events in detail.
Iraq is not a democracy, it is a problematic region now destroyed by years of war . It was called a democracy for the same reason Mr Bush 2 declared victory in 2003, and then hoped to withdraw. It was a fallback, politically acceptable cover for what was an ill conceived imperial adventure, such things now long past their expiry date, but still, amazingly, happening in a world where malignant special interest can hold sway in Washington, and a president who can barely string together a grammatically correct sentence, and is open to all manner of sway and influence, is elected to the top position in the world. Such is the world we live in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?