ThePest179

Oh, it's not that long.

Banned outside.

Banned for reusibg your previous post.

 

Are they calling for prosecution and penalties of illegal by the banks? Do they speak out against unfair tax avoidance of large corporations (like Google, General Electric, Exxon, Apple, etc. all paying single digit or less in taxes?). What is their solution for people in poverty? Do they speak out against CORPORATE welfare (for instance? How would they solve the current problems we have?

How often do you listen to their radio shows? They actually do cover all that... (and it's pretty comprehensive opinions too if you pay attention, but I don't have the time right now to find their opinions and put them here) The only problem with getting anything made into law, is that the 'status quo Democrats' control the majorities in the house, the senate, and the presidency... (kinda keeps all the good ideas from being able to be passed)

Yes, just blame the democrats for everything. It's much easier than actually admitting there's a problem that Republicans cause.

From what I know of Hannity and Limbaugh, their stances are a lot of the noise that gets in the way of more serious debate.

It's only 'noise' because when they try to put it through in a bill, they are ridiculed by Democrat controlled media, and the the Dem controlled (in every area possible) government refuses to vote favorably on the bill. (Hannity was seriously considering running for president last time to see if he could change it)

Ah, yes. "liberal/leftist bias" in the mainstream media. Read this article:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_Bias

The current version of the 'radical left' is only about 'social issues', and hoarding power.

Excuse me?

I see them as highly centrist, in some categories more right wing than Republican candidates of the past.

Right and left doesn't correspond to Democrats or Republicans, and hasn't for over 50 years. (it used to, but there's some kind of conspiracy or something going on trying to confuse people)

Conspiracy theorist!

Chris Hedges,

A socialist.

 

Bernie Sanders,

Another socialist.

Red-baiting! This is why we can't do a damn thing about the rich's growing power or corruption: you're called a communist/socialist.

BaNNed fOr BeIng a cOmmIE.

I do have to agree with you there... Unfortunately the only "radicals" that want to do anything to fix the situation are the "extremest right". (people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or me)

Not necessarily. The efforts of Obama himself prove that (some) on the left want to fix the problem, and while the far right do want to fix the problem, some of their solutions are not necessarily the best (although what is the best is up for debate).

I mean our answer to the 2008 financial crisis was to essentially bail people out, slap on the wrist penalties for most companies, nobody went to jail, and no serious legislation was passed to prevent the same thing from happening all over again. HSBC was found guilty of laundering money (and CONTINUING to do so) for Al-Qaeda, the Mexican cartel, and many other criminal organizations, yet the only penalty was a fine of 5 weeks of profit for them. No one went to jail over that and the justice department even came out and said it was afraid to press harsher penalties for fear of damaging the economy. It's essentially an admission that large banks are above the law. I think neither the left nor right establishments are seriously going to challenge this order, because they're also being funded by it. The only people who are serious about wanting to stop corruption in our system are essentially radicals now, as the mainstream just accepts it and debates things like social issues instead.

So America is steadily turning into an oligarchy. Actually makes a lot of sense given you evidence, Ross, and the current Red-baiting methods only add to the sense that business rules America.

BannED foR NOt uusiN' BRoKeN spEEch.

Banned for hatin'.

Banned for no enthusiasm.

Banned because I was unable to start a new page.

Banned for starting a new page.

Banned for no Canadian.

Maybe, but I would argue those nations are meant to fall apart. Syria is a mishmash of Sunni's and Shia's and Kurds and all kinds of other groups. Syria (as we know it now) was just a construct invented by the French after the Great War to maximize their empire.

 

Ukraine had the same thing to it done (in a way) by Russia. Western Ukrainians are much more independence oriented than Eastern Ukrainians. If I remember correct, the west is also Catholic, while the east is Eastern Orthodox. And all this is ignoring the fact even more groups live in Ukraine, such as Tatars and Russians in Crimea. A lot of Western Ukraine belonged to Poland at one point before WWII. So I don't think a nation like that can really survive and be stable.

 

Also, the pattern you describe is what I was proposing in the first place. Most of it has to do with exploding national and religious sentiments which are shaking up the traditional nation states we have known since 1945.

The term "Balkanization" fits very well in this context.

In a conventional war.... probably (though, this would likely be a massive military operation which would require brining back the draft, or activating all the reserves and stop losing like crazy), though, Iran is large. It is about the size of the US Northeast, with around 70 million people, and it is very mountainous (unlike Iraq, which was mostly flat), perfect terrain to inflict losses on the enemy. While I agree the US would most *likely* win the conventional stage of the war, cost matters. Iran may not have much in terms of power projection, but I do think they have some ability to defend their homeland.

 

As for the guerilla warfare... oh yeah, we'll be fucked (at least if we try to spread western values and change society like we do in Afghanistan, for instance).We might be looking at hundreds of thousands of casualties over the long run, and large scale conscription if you wanted to really occupy that nation. I am not a military expert at all (though I am trying to sign up for the Navy), but for some reason the number 500,000 comes to mind to establish some sort of credible occupation/nation building force. Possibly more.

Exactly. It would be much worse if Iran acquired nuclear capability as well. But that's another story. Also, I see a potentially horrifying pattern here: In Syria, protests cumulated in a bloody crackdown followed by war. A similar pattern seems to be evolving in the Ukraine (albeit, less bloody).

#Banned #for #no #hashtaggs.

As for the terrorism.... this is why I want to stay out. While I would honestly prefer Assad to prevail, either way the US loses. It's just I'd rather have a rational actor who occasionally threatens Israel than an irrational one threatening America herself via fanatical terrorist action.

Sure, Assad is a rational man, you still lose, because the losers spread out/blame America for their loss.....there is no winning. And then, what if Assad decides to act on his anti-Israeli rhetoric? And Iranian hegemony spreads, Hezbollah gets a new base of operations, it's like the Black Mesa incident: Xenians, Marines, Race X, and later on Black Ops, and to top it all off, none of them are willing to negotiate or surrender, and they all are very hazardous. Intervention or not, we lose.

 

 

Exactly, in the end we still lose either way. But there are some key point's I think you are missing here, especially on Iran:

 

I would not really call it Iranian "hegemony." Hegemony was when the US in the mid to late 1990s had total full spectrum dominance, and no other nation on earth could really oppose it via conventional military means, or economic influence.

 

First off, Iran has problems, like difficulty purchasing modern weapons (they get some, but if you look at their air force inventory for instance, still not all that fantastic).

 

On top of that, the Iranian economy is fragile, gas prices are high (believe it or not!), and there is a lot of discontent with weak economic performance.

 

On top of that, you have the brain drain which began with the fall of the Shah, but has just continued. Iran has difficulty maintaining enough well educated people to advance science and technology.

 

Militarily, they have some capabilities. But these are limited, for instance (and this is coming from a USNA grad, and a man who did a tour in the Persian Gulf), the Iranian Navy could inflict some damage to the US Navy if the Iranians hit first in a surprise attack. But besides that, their Naval forces can't do too much. Air force was already talked about. In general, Iran can't really project power.

 

Finally, Iran can never achieve hegemony because there are other powerful Islamic world nations that oppose it, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The US is also allied with all three of these nations, and if need be can move in to inflict damage upon Iran.

 

Iran, in a conflict might get some help from Russia, but this would most likely limited to supplying weapons. I doubt we would see any Russian troops (maybe some special forces) or planes in Iran. The day's when Russia/USSR could deploy up to 60,000 men to the Mideast in one week, are over. Russia could only deploy a few thousand paratroopers outside of Russia, if that.

I stand corrected. Iran would still be somewhat difficult to handle, but victory is assured in a conventional war (an irregular one, however...).

Banned for alcohol.

As for the terrorism.... this is why I want to stay out. While I would honestly prefer Assad to prevail, either way the US loses. It's just I'd rather have a rational actor who occasionally threatens Israel than an irrational one threatening America herself via fanatical terrorist action.

Sure, Assad is a rational man, you still lose, because the losers spread out/blame America for their loss.....there is no winning. And then, what if Assad decides to act on his anti-Israeli rhetoric? And Iranian hegemony spreads, Hezbollah gets a new base of operations, it's like the Black Mesa incident: Xenians, Marines, Race X, and later on Black Ops, and to top it all off, none of them are willing to negotiate or surrender, and they all are very hazardous. Intervention or not, we lose.

Nether - maybe, I've played the original Day Z and while I like the survival aspect, getting sniped by other players gets old fast, depends if I can get around that or not

That's a good game, if you can get past the PvP aspects.

Machinima is the perfect example of a business becoming corrupt. Let's hope it caves in on itself.

Oil: Syria has some oil, but it is not a major oil producer like, say, Saudi Arabia. Besides that, we are starting to get oil from other locations anyway (Fracking, for instance, whether or not it's right is a whole other debate).

When I said oil, I was referring to the Middle East at large. And what better way to get that then with a puppet state?

Terrorism: In this case, if the rebels prevail, we will most likely get a terrorist haven out of Syria. Supporting anti Assad forces is doing something to help, not hurt terrorism. I have read some rumblings that one of the motivators behind Syria are the far right Israeli Likud party, and their associated pro Israel lobbies in the US, who want to wipe out any regime opposed to Israel, even if it is in the long term interest for Israel to have a rational (however cruel) state actor like Assad, as opposed to a bunch of irrational Muslim fanatics.

Yep, and there's the dilemma. Do we help the terrorists or a brutal tyrant? If we help the Syrian opposition, we run a major risk in the creation of a Sunni extremist state, bent on genocide of the Shiites and Jews, but if Assad wins, we get a similar genocide dilemma with Sunnis, and the risk of a safe haven for Hezbollah and an Iranian ally. And if we do nothing, someone will grow to hate the US for not supporting the losing side, and become a major terrorist, or the losers will spread out through the Middle East to wreck havoc somewhere else, or the winners will unite the region against Israel or the US, etc, etc. There's just too much potential for something bad to happen.

Banned for no drugs or caps.

I am writing to my Senator this week, complaining about how the US is arming "moderate" Syrian rebels. We just can't seem to stay out of the middle east. Though I know it won't do a damned thing.

Ah, Syria, Syria. I don't think there is a single solution for the Syrian problem. There's the Syrian "moderates", who claim they're fighting for democracy, the Sunni terrorists that are intent on creating a hardline Islamic state, the Syrian government that preaches fascism and Shiite ideals, aided by the anti Israeli group Hezbollah and Iran, a Kurdish rebellion throughout the area, and possibly chemical weapons that are still floating around....no end to madness. What to do is the million dollar question. As for US intervention in the Middle East, I give you two reasons for this: the threat of Islamic terrorism and bountiful oil.

Banned for trusting him with all your drugs, and mine.

Ah, thread necromancy (or not, depending on your viewpoint). Well, seems like a deal is finally taking shape, although they are particularly risky (lessening sanctions on Iran in return for a nuclear deal, about time something happened). Let's hope Iran isn't going behind our backs while sanctions are lessoned.