Will Taiwan be destroyed by China while Biden remains silent?

marke

Well-known member

Opinion: Iraqis never got the democracy we were promised. We are paying the price.

Tallha Abdulrazaq

Sunday’s poll was another sad day for me — as I imagine it was for many other Iraqis, if the abysmal 41 percent turnout is anything to go by. We never got the democracy we were promised, and were instead left with a grossly incompetent, highly corrupt and hyperviolent monster masquerading as a democracy and traumatizing a generation. . . .

What the miserly turnout proves is that very few Iraqis believe in democracy anymore, and certainly not the flavor that was forced upon us at gunpoint by the United States and its allies in 2003. These elections simply serve to punctuate what we already know, which is that our vote will be used to justify the mirage of democracy, while a handpicked group of elites will continue to profit as we continue to suffer.

With such deep systemic and structural problems — and with a continued lack of justice for the victims of those murdered by security forces and militias, who act with total impunity — Iraqi politics is doomed to continue on its current trajectory of rot and ruin. I, for one, will not dye my index finger blue for the sake of Iraq’s faux democracy ever again. I am certain I am not alone in my despair.
The problem with freedom for innocent people is that wicked people are always ruining the prospects for peace and prosperity by forcing bad ideas and policies on others. That is true everywhere, in Iraq, in America, and elsewhere.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member

Opinion: Iraqis never got the democracy we were promised. We are paying the price.

Tallha Abdulrazaq

Sunday’s poll was another sad day for me — as I imagine it was for many other Iraqis, if the abysmal 41 percent turnout is anything to go by. We never got the democracy we were promised, and were instead left with a grossly incompetent, highly corrupt and hyperviolent monster masquerading as a democracy and traumatizing a generation. . . .

What the miserly turnout proves is that very few Iraqis believe in democracy anymore, and certainly not the flavor that was forced upon us at gunpoint by the United States and its allies in 2003. These elections simply serve to punctuate what we already know, which is that our vote will be used to justify the mirage of democracy, while a handpicked group of elites will continue to profit as we continue to suffer.

With such deep systemic and structural problems — and with a continued lack of justice for the victims of those murdered by security forces and militias, who act with total impunity — Iraqi politics is doomed to continue on its current trajectory of rot and ruin. I, for one, will not dye my index finger blue for the sake of Iraq’s faux democracy ever again. I am certain I am not alone in my despair.
And who was it that treated the Afghanis far worse than that? It seems you have a lot of short term memory loss.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Democrats: "Don't defend Vietnam from communists, don't defend Taiwan from communists, don't defend Ukraine from communists, don't defend Afghanistan from murderous warlords" and so forth.
That's a bit ironic considering that "we defended Vietnam from communists" and lost.
We "defended Afghanistan from murderous warlords" and lost.
Will we "defend" the other 2 and go 4 for 4?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
That's a bit ironic considering that "we defended Vietnam from communists" and lost.
Rather we won the Vietnam war, forced the north Vietnamese to the peace table and signed a peace agreement that we knew they wouldn't honor if we didn't support the South Vietnamese government.
With the destruction of the Nixon presidency, the left no longer cared about the Vietnamese, they no longer protested, they no longer rioted in the cities (any of this sounding familiar?) and they threw the South Vietnamese to the wolves.
We "defended Afghanistan from murderous warlords" and lost.
We didn't lose. Biden surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban.
Will we "defend" the other 2 and go 4 for 4?
God only knows.
 

marke

Well-known member
That's a bit ironic considering that "we defended Vietnam from communists" and lost.
We "defended Afghanistan from murderous warlords" and lost.
Will we "defend" the other 2 and go 4 for 4?
Yes, good people will always defend the innocent against wicked oppression wherever and whenever possible.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Yes, good people will always defend the innocent against wicked oppression wherever and whenever possible.

If that were true, then abortion mills would have closed up shop long ago due to lack of victims.
 

marke

Well-known member
If that were true, then abortion mills would have closed up shop long ago due to lack of victims.
Just because righteous defenders of freedom and righteousness face huge opposition and losses as well as persecution and death at the hands of the wicked does not diminish the duty of the righteous to continue to fight for what is right.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Yes, good people will always defend the innocent against wicked oppression wherever and whenever possible.
Invading foreign lands based on the benefit to our corrupt leaders is not "defending the innocent".
No nation has been tasked with ruling the world, except Israel in the future.
 
Just because righteous defenders of freedom and righteousness face huge opposition and losses as well as persecution and death at the hands of the wicked does not diminish the duty of the righteous to continue to fight for what is right.

It sure weeds out the weak ones
 

Right Divider

Body part
The ones that threaten our friends first.
Then the ones that threaten our national security.
Then the ones that threaten global security.


And always try other measures first
A quote from Ron Paul (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul30.html):
Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address:
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none."
The US, nor any other nation currently on earth, is capable of dealing with every "treat to global security". It's foolishness and arrogance to think otherwise.
 
I see this issue differently than the talking heads.

Think of the treasure and resources we spent protecting West Berlin and West Germany from its communist eastern counterpart.

But in WWII was not China also our friend? And today, Taiwan is still technically that same China and that same Chinese government of old, while the communists have taken over the mainland.

Should we not protect them with the same zeal? If not, explain to me WHY not?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
A quote from Ron Paul (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul30.html):

The US, nor any other nation currently on earth, is capable of dealing with every "treat to global security". It's foolishness and arrogance to think otherwise.
It is vital to America's interests to protect the petroleum resources in the Middle East, and so to ensure stability in that region.
It was not vital to America's interest to intervene in the Rwandan genocide, for instance, and so we didn't.
And I put global security last.

And Jefferson could not have conceived of the modern world, and our role in it. I appreciate his sentiment and I understand why it was important when he wrote it, especially with regard to what was happening in Europe with our former Ally France.
But in this modern world, where the phone call that I make to my son on his aircraft carrier in South Korea, is a local call, put through in seconds, while I drive on paved roads in a 2-ton 300 horsepower box of steel and glass and plastic? A world in which most of the clothing I wear was made in China? A world where virtually none of the food that I eat is produced locally? And much of that is produced in other countries, especially this time of year?
It's a world he couldn't have imagined.
 
Top