Einstein the United States is #1 for sales known. That does not make them #1 in arms sales. Keep in mind the amount of black market moves made and the fact that they will obviously not be reported.

Secondly, my particular job in the Marine Corps is to know what weapon systems every country has...and lets just say that China is MORE capable than you might think

"I am not a corrupt politician"

Point is, that along with pretty much everyone else in every profession out there, soon you too will have to be if you want to keep your job.

Go research how much money the United States made from WWII. From bonds alone it made 185 billion in bonds. That doesnt even count the MASSIVE amount it made by loaning those countries for rebuilding. You are incorrect in the fact that we have been constructing, sustaining, and rebuilding anything in those other countries. And if you think that the US is wrong for sustaining their own military force then you truly are a fool.

The world revolved around violence. It always has and it always will. The idea of world peace may be cool but it is just as mythical as a flying unicorn. It is not the United States job to worry about the human race....it is their job to protect Americans. That is the only issue I currently have with the way our government handles its foreign affairs. When other countries receive more aid than the homeless on the streets in your hometown do, then we have a problem.

What the US needs to do is call in all the debts owed them by SO MANY COUNTRIES and stop aiding all of those countries who just cant fend for themselves. Then once they have fixed their own problem of debt, they can start to branch out and help people again.

Whats the saying? "Fix yourself before you fix others?"

> The Riddler wrote:

> Go research how much money the United States made from WWII.

> bonds, etc..

Doesn't matter how many digits in a computer-record the US made.  The point is that it wasted resources that could otherwise have been spent on colonizing space.

>Whats the saying? "Fix yourself before you fix others?"

I agree with this in theory, but in practice this probably isn't feasible.

It's not as black and white as you put it Hydro. You are aware the US were a major force behind the Afghan guerilla while fighting the USSR. After they left, your government decided not to help rebuild Afghanistan, allowing the talibans to take control of the country. You know how that turned out don't you?

Sometimes just rolling the dice and keeping your fingers crossed doesn't work

Agreed on the point of Obama Genesis. He is not pro war just like he is not pro America

Secondly, if rolling the dice with your fingers crossed always worked then casino's would be out of business now wouldn't they?

I am not for America getting into another war right now. I am not advocating it

My comments about Obama being anti-American are based on a much larger scale than just his foreign relations (of which I do not really like either).

And America could not have known that the Taliban was going to take over and turn on the very nation that helped them survive fighting Russia

The West, I assume you are saying, needs to fix itself; take off its "rose colored glasses" and take an honest look.

What would the West see if it were to do this?

xeno syndicated:
"If neither governs with the consent of the willing, how is one any more legitimate than the other?"

What evidence do you have that the US's leaders don't govern with the consent of the "willing"? I presume you meant people they govern.

"The only difference I see is that one presents itself with the facade of being a democratic state, while the other doesn't bother with the facade."

Are you some new level of conspiracy theorist who believes that all elections are completely fraudulent? Would you be so kind as to provide us with the evidence of this? You're making massive presumptions and not even bothering to explain your basis for them. It's [fudging] weird.

"I would have to disagree with this in so far as it is not the public's fault.  You can't blame the voting public for their selection of candidate when every candidate presented is trashy, deceitful, corrupt, and moronic."

Yes, you can. Who is selected starts at the local level where small groups' and even individuals' contributions to the selection and campaign processes start. We don't magically get big party candidates in offices and at conventions: They're all voted in, generally to more local offices first, and up they go. Real human beings support them with votes.

"The question is not why we keep electing trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons.  The question is why is it that trashy, deceitful, corrupt morons are the only options presented to the public as candidates."

You sound confused. Do you live in Sudan? Do you need an in-depth explanation of our electoral processes? Obviously. Such people are not the only people in the United States. They are, however, by and large the only ones getting elected. You are completely wrong to claim that nobody else runs. Other people do run. They don't get votes. Surely you would know this if you cared to, so you look like you're trolling.

"No. Has the public had the opportunity to keep themselves well-informed?  No."

The answer to the second question is "Yes." Again, you're simply wrong. Anyone who cares to educate themselves has access to cheap internet and, if they responsibly choose other priorities, they still have free internet access at libraries all across the nation.

"Democracies succeed when society is reasonably egalitarian in its wealth distribution. "

This is just HILARIOUS. Where do you come up with this? No society (that is, more than a small community) on Earth has ever had such a system. The Greeks who thought it up certainly didn't conform to your ridiculous notion. The Americans who created unprecedented wealth certainly didn't conform to your ridiculous notion. Where the [fudge!] do you come up with such idiotic notions? If you want to naively claim that janitors should be compensated at the same level as doctors and rocket scientists, you can go ahead and try to make that ridiculous argument. But to just presume this is the case (hahaha!) without even an explanation and come to conclusions on such a basis is absolutely categorically retarded.

"Democracies succeed when its democratic process is as more akin to that of a direct democracy rather than representative democracy. "

Except in the case of Americans being the most free (past history, forget arguable present) and quickly becoming the most wealthy nation on earth in a short period of time. Again your claim has what basis?

You're just making up all kinds of crazy and factually wrong presumptions (without any attempt to pretend they have any basis) and building nonsense on them. Good trolling.

The Riddler:

There's nothing silly about national sovereignty and not sending young people to die because of some academic, political bullshit. There are other sources of oil. The whole world's economy does not depend on any nation in the Middle East. To claim that it's "childish" to demand more responsible governance because you want a big [fudging] world babysitter to police [ie, violate the sovereignty of] other nations is... well, childish.

Forget philosophy and morality, it's simply uneconomical to pretend that anyone can afford to "police" the world. Nations can act responsibly and protect themselves or get bent over and [hugged!]. You're stating that it's childish to not want to police other nations of the world, but the fact is nobody can afford to do it. To ignore the economic reality and just pretend is childish.

That the US _massively_ [fudged, again!] up after its initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is pretty much indisputable. For anyone who doesn't know, in addition to tribal politics and corruption, there are no suitable banks "over there" so everything is dealt with in cash. ie, HELLO EMBEZZLEMENT!

"I do not feel that he is pushing our country towards war with Iran and is rather trying to avoid an altercation between Israel and Iran"

How has his soft stance on Iran avoided conflict? Israel has been clear that they will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Obama, on the other hand, has assured the Iranians he absolutely will not attack them. This only encourages Iranians to continue their arms race and provoke Israel into attacking them.

If Obama wanted to grow up, lead the free world, and avoid conflict, he'd actually pressure and threaten Iran in the interest of deterring them from developing The Bomb and subsequently deterring Israel from attacking Iran. He's made it very clear he won't attack Iran or back Israel in such an attack, encouraging Iran to continue on the course it has maintained for decades.

To pretend he's being diplomatic and attempting to stop Iran is laughable. You don't discourage anyone from doing anything by assuring them that you absolutely will not make them stop.

He's holding his hands up, saying "Not before the election! I told everyone to chill! I didn't do or say anything! You can't blame me if something happens!"

This does nothing to discourage Iran. This assures Iran they have another 6+ months with a guarantee of no US attack. This is not diplomacy to "fight" Iran, this is political posturing at a cost to stability in the region.

I do agree with a lot of what you posted, The Riddler. On the region, what's going on there, etc. I just have some spirited disagreements on "policing" and Mr. Obama's diplomatic performance I have outlined above.

lol @ xeno syndicated pretending the world would explode tomorrow and we missed the opportunity to invest in space research. I'd remark, but I must move on so I can stop laughing.

Genesis:
"As far as the topic goes, Obama adopted had anti-war stance for years before he was even elected president, and has kept to that commitment as much as possible."

He was forced to bomb Libya for the interests of other nations which had nothing to do with the Americans who blew them up?

"But he is still making moves to try and keep Israel and Iran from going at each other."

I disagree. Israel has made it clear they won't tolerate a nuclear Iran. Obama has made it clear he will not do anything to stop Iran from going nuclear.

Therefore, he's doing nothing to help the situation. Insofar as he could have left the thread of force on the table to dissuade Iran from going nuclear, he's made the problem worse by removing any threat of US force of arms. Iran knows Israel will have to strike alone if it strikes, and this is a comfort to Iran while it develops nuclear arms. Obama gave them this comfort, encouraging them to remain on the path of going nuclear.

I also mentioned about the policing issue that it's no economically feasible. That is, it is physically impossible to maintain. We're 15.5 trillion in debt. I don't know how much further we can go, but there will be a limit at some point. My point about policing (one of them, the economic one) was that we literally cannot keep policing the entire world (and we haven't even tried to police the _whole_ world) forever. We don't have the money. It's not possible. That part of it was not opinion.

Pretend whatever you want. I know it and Iran knows it. Obama's not going to touch Iran.

This couldn't be more clear from his openly talking about Israeli time-tables and publicly criticizing Israel on the matter. If you think there's any possibility Obama will order an attack on Iran in order to prevent them from achieving nuclear arms, you must be the only person on earth.

All evidence points to us not being able to police even parts of the world w/o massive deficits. All the evidence sides with me: We've never done it on a balanced budget.

It _could_ be done morally, in theory. However, I don't trust the trash in DC. This is no Monroe doctrine and neither Bush nor Obama is Monroe. I'd rather we error on the safe side until we can keep our noses clean and stop messing with others' affairs.