-
Posts
6704 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Ghost of LL
-
-
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:
Imagine living in a nation that spends more than essentially the rest of the world combined on the military and is the largest exporter of weapons and thinking, "Man, those other places are so warlike and unstable!"
So your point is that the MIddle East is unstable; but we're a primary cause of the instability?
Ok.
Maybe I'll agree with you; probably I won't. I just have to take a few minutes to catch my breath after watching those goalposts shift by me at such high speed.
-
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:
And you have no standing to judge the "nature" of the region.
Literally an avatar of Harry Flashman for god's sake.
No standing?
What the fuck does that even mean?
Nevermind--that's a rhetorical question. I don't really care; I'm done feeding the troll.
-
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:
Again, "nature". You have no standing the judge the "nature" of the region and doing so is a chauvinist (and ignorant) pursuit.
This is intensely stupid. From Merriam-Webster: Nature: the inherent character or basic constitution (see CONSTITUTION sense 2) of a person or thing : ESSENCE
Things have a "nature." It is not "chauvinist" or racist to comment on them.
And, by the way, the nature of things can change. Western Europe 1,000 years ago had an intensely unstable and warlike nature; the Middle East rather less so. It is not chauvinistic or racist to observe as much.
Quit trolling. You've lost the point.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:
Here is what you said:
"The American action to remove the Hussein regime in Iraq was intended to remove one source of instability; it created another in its place. Such is the nature of an unstable region."Nature. Hrmmmm.
And again, in no sense was the American action to remove Hussein "intended to remove one source of instability". That is ridiculous.
You're the only one "hrmmm"-ing about that. It is the nature of unstable regions that when one source of regional instability is removed, the region often (paradoxically) becomes more unstable. That's not unique to the Middle East, and it's not a commentary on the people who live there. It is a commentary on unstable regions.
To wit--the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century was unquestionably a source of European instability. But its removal from the Balkans over the 50 years leading up to 1914 didn't make Europe more stable; it paradoxically made it less stable.
And finally, your argument that American action to remove the Hussein regime wasn't partly motivated by a desire to stabilize the region is belied by the writings of neo-conservatives close to the Administration who were promoting that exact thing, including (most notably, but certainly not limited to) Kenneth Pollack in his book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.
-
I put a question mark after Israel because the sentence was a question.
I'm not opining on the reasons why the Middle East is unstable. I'm simply positing that it is unstable.
It is you who makes the completely stupid claims that (1) the Middle East is no less stable than Western Europe and North America, and (2) it is racist to observe otherwise.
Now, having recognized the apparent stupidity of your assertions, you attempt to move the goalposts.
Fuck you--you're every bit as bad as the trumpkin trolls.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Fozzz said:
No it does not. The report states "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia Expansion (Iraq and Iran)." As for the identity of those "supporting powers," the report states "The West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey support the opposition," and particularly, "opposition forces are trying to control the Eastern area (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts."
The report explicitly states that the West (who could that be?) in 2012 supported the establishment of a Salafist principality in Eastern Syria...which is exactly what happened two years later. As the Guardian article notes, the report is not a policy document, it's merely an analysis of what was occurring in the region at that time, including our support for what would become ISIS. The end of the report is a warning from the author that our support for the opposition's establishment of a Salafist principality could result in the ISI declaring an Islamic State.
When you read the report in context, it is clear that it is not talking about the United States when it reports on who wants a Salafist principality. It's trying to be vague, in case it is ever leaked by Wikileaks, but the context is clear that it's talking about the Gulf States.
Go back and read it again through that lens. Because it's very clear what it's saying.
And anyway--there's a link to it above. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about what it does and doesn't say. The report speaks for itself.
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:Our adventure in Iraq was not intended to remove a source of instability. That makes no sense and it's not even an argument the Bush Administration tried to make, as far as I can recall, and they said A LOT of untrue and dumb things in the desperate run-up to a pointless war.
What "region" is not unstable? Europe is responsible for two World Wars, both of them extremely recent. Our own nation had an insanely bloody Civil War not long ago. We are still involved in an unresolved war in Korea.
I’m sure “those savages just can’t keep it together” is a convincing argument for you, but it’s racist and false.
So Western Europe*, which hasn't had a war in nearly 75 years, and North America, which hasn't had a major war in 120 years, are somehow as unstable as the Middle East, which has (at least) two civil wars going (both of which being proxy wars for major regional players), at least two failed states (three if you want to put Somalia in the region; maybe more depending on what you think of the Sudan and South Sudan), multiple low-level insurgencies, countless autocracies that could collapse at any moment, and . . . Israel?
Completely the same, right?
* Southeastern Europe, however, has, and I would regard it has every bit as unstable as the Middle East. And I'm sorry if that blows up your whole "Ghost is a racist because he things only non-white people inhabit unstable regions" theory.
God, you're a fucking putz.
-
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:
Love to use racism to absolve my imperial nation of all responsibility.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Fozzz said:
So the CIA program to train and provide material support to rebels in Syria, including ones linked with extremist sectarian groups, was part of a plan to protect the Kurds and/or defeat ISIS? It was that program that necessitated Russia's entry into the conflict and greatly exasperated it. Moreover, it was this program, along with support from our "allies" in the Gulf, that fueled the rise of ISIS' "Caliphate." Hell, we even predicted and supported that outcome.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
So I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what brought about Russia's entry into the conflict.
Beyond that, the Guardian piece to which you link wildly misrepresents the intelligence report. If you go and read the report, it is clear that it does not promote the rise of AQI/ISIS, but instead characterizes it as a "grave" threat to the Iraqi state, which the United States has a keen interest in maintaining.
Look, man, I don't know if you're being lazy or just intellectually dishonest, but either way--dude, I've got a lot of tables.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Fozzz said:
So the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and not the US’ liquidation of Saddam’s regime and it’s support of rebel groups in Syria, is responsible for current instability in the region? Okay.
Also, you didn’t answer my question. Are the losses in life and other costs brought about by our actions worth the price of seeking hegemony in the region?
It is difficult to say what exactly the result would be from an American withdrawal from the region, but it’s hard to argue our actions have made the region a better place. More importantly, we are the ones responsible for the consequences of those actions. Those are people you and I helped kill. It is not our responsibility to unilaterally destabilize or liquidate problematic regimes, particularly when we are not principally motivated by the welfare of the population in question.
There can be--and are--multiple sources of instability. The American action to remove the Hussein regime in Iraq was intended to remove one source of instability; it created another in its place. Such is the nature of an unstable region.
As to your "question," I'm not going to answer it because it begs the question. You presuppose that the purpose of our involvement in Syria is "seeking hegemony in the region." It is not. It is primarily about (1) protecting the Kurds, who have been a consistent and dogged ally, and (2) defeating ISIS. Both are objectives worth pursuing, and both objectives are worth the rater limited investment we're putting toward pursuing them.
And it's not difficult to say what would result from American withdrawal. It's apparent from experience. And I don't even need to go back hundreds of years for that experience--look at what happened when Obama abruptly pulled out of Iraq (i.e., ISIS (nee AQI) grew to the point of being able to declare a caliphate). Look at what happened just last year in Syria after Trump's foolish announcement--the area got a whole lot more deadly for American troops and our allies.
And by the way--I don't even need to look at experience. All I need to consult is common sense. If we break our words to our allies, who will ever trust us again? Why would they? It's not about being a hegemon; it's about having any role in international affairs ever again. Why would anyone want to be our ally if we have a demonstrated history of betraying our allies?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:
How has Syria acted to destabilize the region? By not being overthrown by US backed rebels having ties to extremist groups like al Nusra? lol. The US has done far more than any country on Earth to destabilize the region, so it's hard to take that concern very seriously.
The main contention in the points you list is that it's in the interest of the US to further US hegemony in the MENA and Assad stands athwart of that goal, making him an enemy of the US. However, it's precisely this interest that Tulsi is challenging - that it's actually in the interest of the American populace to seek hegemony in the region. It's her contention that it is immoral and not worth the blood and money. Was US hegemony worth 9/11? Was it worth the lives of the Americans who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the lives of the hundreds of thousands civilians who perished from those conflicts?
So I take it you're completely unfamiliar with Syria's actions in Lebanon over the past 40 years. Or with its support for various terrorist organizations, including (but not limited to) Hizbullah.
And no--we have not done more than any country on Earth to destabilize the region. That trophy probably goes to the Neo-Assyrian Empire 2,800 years ago. Or perhaps to the Mongol Empire 760 years ago. If, if you want to get a bit more recent, I'd probably point to the French and British in the last century.
But what that lengthy history reflects is that the region has always been inherently unstable, and stability has only ever been imposed by an external (depending on how we're defining the "region") hegemon. Whether it was the Persian Empire or the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire or the British Empire, the region has always and, owing to the divergent peoples that populate it, almost certainly will always have a hegemon.
The question is: who will that hegemon be?
Iran and Russia want to take that role. Syria would like to help them. Does anybody honestly think it is in America's national interest to see Iran and Russia assert their hegemony over the Middle East? Does anybody honestly think America's economic interests will be furthered by that development?
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Fozzz said:
It's a bullshit question. It would be one thing if Assad attacked us or armed groups to overthrow our government, like we did to Syria, but nothing like that has occurred. We also clearly have interests in common with Assad concerning terrorism and stabilizing the region. If we really are interested in the stabilization of Syria then Assad is someone who will have to play a key role in that effort.
In light of the above, why should Assad be labeled as an adversary? Because of how his regime treats its own people? Then why aren't the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia also our adversaries? Is it because, as an ally of Russia, he's not dependent on us, and thus we cannot control him (or sell him weapons) and the government of Syria? Those might be valid reasons for The Blob and some special interest groups but they don't mean much for ordinary Americans.
The Assad regime:
1) Is a close ally of our foremost enemy that has actually attacked the United States (i.e., Russia). It's not just that "we cannot control him (or sell him weapons);" it's that the Assad regime gives Russia a base of operations in a strategic region and provides Russia with a port in the Mediterranean from which the Russian Navy can challenge American forces and American allies.
2) Is a close ally of our foremost adversary in the region (i.e., Iran) and has worked with Iran closely to attack American allies and destabilize the region. I can have no stomach for invading Iran, and still recognize that Iran is a malign force in the Middle East. And so its very close ally is likewise a malign force.
3) Is an avowed enemy of two of our closest allies in the region (i.e., Israel and Turkey). And as many problems as I may have with the Israeli and Turkish governments at the moment, they remain important regional allies, one of which being bound to us by a mutual-defense treaty.
4) And yeah--used poison gas on its own people. And if you don't think that's a big deal, then you should go back and review some of the histories of World War I. There's a reason that has been taboo for a century.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Has Tulsi come out and said she wholeheartedly rejects the support of Russia and David Duke?
Or is she pulling a Trump and pretending those things aren’t happening?
She was definitely doing that with Russia. She sounded downright trumpian in her denials that anything was going on with Russia.
I was like others on here who had never seen her talk before, and so I really had no impression. I thought she came off really poorly--to the point that I told Mrs.LL that, in the exceedingly unlikely event that Gabbard won he nomination, I'd probably vote for Trump. At least then I'd get my damned tax cut.
-
Nobody whips a caucus like Nancy Pelosi.
-
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Schumer is also Nancy’s bitch and that’s a good thing.
He's Pelosi's wingman. And Nancy gets to take Melania home and ass-fuck her in front of Donald. So the wingman did his job.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Hey GOP, how's it feel to know that Pelosi is more of a man than ANY of you will ever be? You best go home quick, or she'll be there railing your wives, and coincidentally, satisfying them for the first time in their sad lives.
Hawt.
In all seriousness--this is how his approval drops below 30%. Everyone who isn't part of his base hates him. That's now solidified.
But if you're a Republican who believed in the wall (which is to say, a Republican), don't you have to be completely demoralized by this? He fucking caved and got nothing. Isn't that a kick in the balls? And how can you support a guy who completely caves?
The illusion may be lifting.
-
2
-
-
52 minutes ago, mulletpelini said:
call me racist I'm pretty sure that guy wasn't north american
I thought he was Quebecois.
-
4 minutes ago, scottsins said:
Yeah. And for some reason, one of mine is FUCKED after 3 years. It’s full and (I think) oxidizing. It’s never been touched by metal or out in the dishwasher. Sucks because I loved that pan.
You should check into that. My understanding is that they are pretty reasonably about changing out defective products.
-
The Republicans keep this going much longer, and they're going to create a new golden era for the American labor movement.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, RayDog said:
Do i have to threaten to sue you for slander to get you to stop making these false allegations?
Please. Sue me for slander. If you want, I'll PM you where you can serve me with process.
A word of warning, however--I'm hiring @Brisketexan as my lawyer. He's very expensive. And that's of importance to you because you'll be paying his fees. Because, you see--my first filing will be a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens' Participation Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 27 (you should google that). And when I win that motion, an award of fees is mandatory.
Oh, and now with that, all the lawyers on here can get 0.1 hours of self-study CLE credit.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, RayDog said:
While there are some underage ones my guesstimate is 2 to 4%.
So you think there's some sort of margin-of-error for fucking underaged prostitutes under the PROTECT Act?
Look, man--aside from everything else, these are not the types of admissions you want to be making in a public forum. I mean, if your goal is to stay out of federal prison. If your goal is to take a criminal off the street, then by all means, keep typing away. You're just giving the U.S. Attorney evidence (if they were actually around to obtain evidence, that is; but alas, they're not due to #trumpshutdown).
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Makes me satisfied I gave her a lot of shit on twitter for Kavanaugh.
-
1 hour ago, Mole said:
Buried the lede. Raydog hires 10 prostitutes a month? Am I interpreting that correctly?
That's not the lede. That's old news.
Other old news--most of the prostitutes are underage and RayDog can't come back to the United States because if he did, he'd be arrested under the PROTECT Act.
-
2
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:
I'm glad I haven't paid much attention to this mess. I will say this, as a father of a great kid (cue "he was a great kid") who as a young teenager is only now showing any signs of having even a shred of leadership potential, I think it's kinda shitty to extrapolate shitty teenage behavior too far forward in life. I don't think my son would ever disparage someone for their race or sexuality but I've seen him go along with the de facto group leader in goofy jackassery dozens if not a hundred times or more in his young life. He's a follower. An inherently moral, ethical follower. At times "follow" wins out.
This is not to say Smirky McSmirkface isn't a dick -- he seems to exude dickishness -- but I'll bet there's a dozen boys in that group who are quite literally going along to get along. Throw in a completely naive world view and sometimes things that get told as "truth" are just absorbed as such, until much later when actual experience teaches otherwise.
Being a former stupid teenager, I can sympathize with stupid teenagers doing stupid things. I never did anything like this, but I did plenty of stuff of which I'm ashamed. And I'm glad that my stupidity didn't occur in an age of camera phones.
But even so, when we had a class trip to DC, we had parents and teachers who would've immediately stepped into that and ushered us away (because it's far from inconceivable that a bunch of stupid asshole teenagers from Highland Park circa 1989 could've done almost exactly that same thing). And that's the chaperones'/teachers' job--be the fucking adult and keep your charges from engaging in stupid-teenager behavior. In so doing, you shield your charges from the consequences of their predictable stupid-teenager behavior.
And that's a really important job in 20019, because in the age of the camera-phone, the consequences will never be the same.
-
7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:
So this is an East Coast thing? Because I could swear that I'd never heard of a Black Israelite before this weekend.
2020 Democratic Nominee
in Cloak Room
Posted
You have very serious difficulty in (1) expressing yourself through the written word, and (2) understanding what others have written. I'm done with this nonsense.