Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:04 pm**

Remember that your entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make your opinion right.

Let us discuss! For non-Americans too!!!!

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:31 pm**

I voted for kittens, as they are the only group with enough power to actually do anything about it either way (as long as they are sufficiently supplied with cheezeburgerz)

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:40 pm**

I'd love to see us withdraw our troops from around the world. It would save us money and would piss off a lot less people. Unfortunately that would involve curtailing the military industrial complex, so it won't occur.

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:28 pm**

I often wonder about this question and peoples' views on it. I've not met one person, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal who believes we should entangible ourselves MORE in world affairs (militarily). I've met people who believe we should entangle ourselves in certain foreign affairs (e.g. Israel v. Iran).

That being said, I wonder why people don't vote that way when it comes to their politicians. Why don't we have more non-interventionist politicians? Even President Clinton and President Obama are interventionists and they come from the ostensibly less-warmongering side of the spectrum.

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:51 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:I often wonder about this question and peoples' views on it. I've not met one person, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal who believes we should entangible ourselves MORE in world affairs (militarily). I've met people who believe we should entangle ourselves in certain foreign affairs (e.g. Israel v. Iran).

That being said, I wonder why people don't vote that way when it comes to their politicians. Why don't we have more non-interventionist politicians? Even President Clinton and President Obama are interventionists and they come from the ostensibly less-warmongering side of the spectrum.

Certain presidents may well be less disposed to military intervention but all of them are hugely disposed to corporate interests , these are what primarily drive the agenda.

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:02 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:I often wonder about this question and peoples' views on it. I've not met one person, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal who believes we should entangible ourselves MORE in world affairs (militarily). I've met people who believe we should entangle ourselves in certain foreign affairs (e.g. Israel v. Iran).

That being said, I wonder why people don't vote that way when it comes to their politicians. Why don't we have more non-interventionist politicians? Even President Clinton and President Obama are interventionists and they come from the ostensibly less-warmongering side of the spectrum.

In virtually every major election people are given the choice between two candidates that are for the expansion of the military, occasionally to different degrees. Otherwise we probably would be cutting back.

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:17 pm**

america is post-imperialist. It just doesn't recognise this fact.

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:23 pm**

comic boy wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I often wonder about this question and peoples' views on it. I've not met one person, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal who believes we should entangible ourselves MORE in world affairs (militarily). I've met people who believe we should entangle ourselves in certain foreign affairs (e.g. Israel v. Iran).

That being said, I wonder why people don't vote that way when it comes to their politicians. Why don't we have more non-interventionist politicians? Even President Clinton and President Obama are interventionists and they come from the ostensibly less-warmongering side of the spectrum.

Certain presidents may well be less disposed to military intervention but all of them are hugely disposed to corporate interests , these are what primarily drive the agenda.

I thought that factor was inherent in my post (or in my prior posts). Not to go on a tangent, but I wonder how corporate interests drive the gay marriage agenda (Chik-Fil-A notwithstanding).

Frigidus wrote:In virtually every major election people are given the choice between two candidates that are for the expansion of the military, occasionally to different degrees. Otherwise we probably would be cutting back.

I thought President Obama was not for the expansion of the military when he was running for office. Pending the pending war with Iran and whether or not Obama is president during that pending war, perhaps you're right.

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:27 pm**

heavycola wrote:america is post-imperialist. It just doesn't recognise this fact.

I wonder how future generations will judge it, what parts of the legacy will be viewed in a positive
fashion ?

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:01 pm**

I'm surprised no one else posted this.

comic boy wrote:
heavycola wrote:america is post-imperialist. It just doesn't recognise this fact.

I wonder how future generations will judge it, what parts of the legacy will be viewed in a positive
fashion ?

What's that saying, history is written by the victors?
Huehuehuehuehue...

Posted: **Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:38 pm**

Maugena wrote:I'm surprised no one else posted this.

comic boy wrote:
heavycola wrote:america is post-imperialist. It just doesn't recognise this fact.

I wonder how future generations will judge it, what parts of the legacy will be viewed in a positive
fashion ?

What's that saying, history is written by the victors?
Huehuehuehuehue...

Even our modern history textbooks don't cover much and contain plenty of propaganda. How does the British Empire feel about post-imperial time? They seem to be fine.