Trump finally remembers muhammad ali

[Maxxtraxx]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I don't think I have seen a Trump thread for weeks.  I even thought about making one for a spell.

 

The reason the joke candidacy of Donald Trump still has a chance is:  We the people, as a whole on earth, are retarded/dumb.  There are those that are relatively dumber than the norm.  They are usually on the Trump side.  Trump is on the border.  He really is dumb folks.  All talk, no spine.

 

I can see calling out Clinton for her less than ethical practices, but when you start calling Sanders an idiot... man that bothers/scares me.

 

40 year career as an activist fighting for what he believes in.  Mostly good things.  Some of you will start in on his plan to provide free stuff.  To you geniuses:  How do you feel about the USA spending 1.7 Trillion dollars to fight in Iraq?  Are you safer yet?

Would Iraqi people be better with Saddam Hussein?

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Would Iraqi people be better with Saddam Hussein?

Why is that the business of the USA?

[Midnitewarrior4]

2 minutes ago, khpura said:

It is sad that America's front runner is Trump!

very

[Maxxtraxx]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Why is that the business of the USA?

I'm asking you what you think, would the Iraqi people be better off with Saddam Hussein?

[WolfDeville]

1 hour ago, Midnitewarrior4 said:

dont get me wrong, trump has good ideas but i dont think hes the guy that can do it without going over the top, i understand why you would want a wall... people have to understand this one tiny (huge) factor..... go to a major border and tell me you dont already see walls.... guys guess what theres already walls oh no time to panic !!

guys thats the whole point of a dam border.. its to keep out the illegal immigrants a beter wall will only help, and to those who say "oh it will hurt the lives of the mexicans" the wall wont hurt any mexicans that are law abiding citizen in their country, the only Mexicans it will hurt is the ones trying to smuggle people and drugs across the dam border...

 

 

again i am not a full supporter of trump but he dopes have some ideas i do support (if you dont like this then kindly screw off cause your not being forced to read or comment on this post, cause i dont wanna hear your whining on my opinion)

I actually agree with you. People tend to think with their emotions rather than logic. It's one of the main problems with this stupid world.

[stconquest]

7 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

I'm asking you what you think, would the Iraqi people be better off with Saddam Hussein?

Your question is irrelevant.  Whether or not the people of Iraq would be better off with/without Saddam is... none of the USA's business until they make it their business.

 

Now before you go off think your military is doing something good:  The USA is responsible for Saddam's rise to power.  The USA is responsible for arming him... yes, even chemical weapons were provided to the regime by the USA.

 

You have to realize you are trying to defend military actions that only proves that the population of your country is dumb and easily swayed to support any endeavor that the sitting officials throw at you. 

 

The USA are not a bunch of good guys running around solving problems.  There might be a bunch of good guys that join the military, most of them are not so good by the time their tour ends.

 

War does not breed heroes.  It breeds murderers... that is what happens when your job is to kill on a massive scale.

[Energycore]

4 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

I'm asking you what you think, would the Iraqi people be better off with Saddam Hussein?

Let's not fool ourselves here, we're not political analysts. Most of us are here for the tech stuff. So most of the time these questions can only be answered with "I don't know".

 

Although my very much uninformed opinion is that the US was tremendously unelegant if they had to spend 1.7 Trillion dollars to overtake the government of a single small (-er than them) country.

 

It's the "Let's just throw more money at the problem until it solves itself" attitude that annoys me about the US. It's a philosophy of waste, and one that has led to the overexploitation of resources worldwide, to climate change, poverty and infertile soil.

 

But I digress. I guess it was nice to be able to write that down, it had been churning inside of me for a while.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Let's not fool ourselves here, we're not political analysts. Most of us are here for the tech stuff. So most of the time these questions can only be answered with "I don't know".

 

Although my very much uninformed opinion is that the US was tremendously unelegant if they had to spend 1.7 Trillion dollars to overtake the government of a single small (-er than them) country.

 

It's the "Let's just throw more money at the problem until it solves itself" attitude that annoys me about the US. It's a philosophy of waste, and one that has led to the overexploitation of resources worldwide, to climate change, poverty and infertile soil.

 

But I digress. I guess it was nice to be able to write that down, it had been churning inside of me for a while.

What's the old Roman adage again?:  "Who profits?"

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

What's the old Roman adage again?:  "Who profits?"

I'm afraid I don't follow.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I'm afraid I don't follow.

When the reasons to the use of such resources (money, basic materials, lives) to fight a war are unclear, ask yourself:  Who profits?

 

How about?:  Follow the money.

 

Just because the reasons are not so clear, does not mean there aren't any real ones.

[Energycore]

Just now, stconquest said:

When the reasons to the use of such resource to fight a war are unclear, ask yourself:  Who profits?

 

How about?:  Follow the money.

 

Just because the reasons are not so clear, does not mean there aren't any real ones.

So who profits then? The armament companies. Which by the looks of it are not being run by very wise people at all.

[Maxxtraxx]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Your question is irrelevant.  Whether or not the people of Iraq would be better off with/without Saddam is... none of their business until they make it their business.

 

Now before you go off think your military is doing something good:  The USA is responsible for Saddam's rise to power.  The USA is responsible for arming him... yes, even chemical weapons were provided to the regime by the USA.

 

You have to realize you are trying to defend military actions that only proves that the population of your country is dumb and easily swayed to support any endeavor that the sitting officials throw at you. 

 

The USA are not a bunch of good guys running around solving problems.  There might be a bunch of good guys that join the military, most of them are not so good by the time their tour ends.

 

War does not breed heroes.  It breeds murderers... that is what happens when your job is to kill on a massive scale.

It's not irrelevant, I'm asking you whether the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power. You're calling out the US for it's war in Iraq costing 1.7 Trillion dollars relative to the US's Safety. I'm asking you to consider whether the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam because if it hasn't helped America has it given THEM whom the war affected a chance to make their country and their homes their business.

 

You're dodging the question that I am asking you like a politican.

 

Would the Iraqi people be better off with saddam hussein?

[Energycore]

4 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

It's not irrelevant, I'm asking you whether the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power. You're calling out the US for it's war in Iraq costing 1.7 Trillion dollars relative to the US's Safety. I'm asking you to consider whether the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam because if it hasn't helped America has it given THEM whom the war affected a chance to make their country and their homes their business.

 

You're dodging the question that I am asking you like a politican.

 

Would the Iraqi people be better off with saddam hussein?

Lol, the conversation is getting pretty heated over here. Peace!

[Tech_Dreamer]

Two Blonde old people running for president , people complaining as always & visibly attacking a candidate & followers to look good on paper & their friends circle   #Murica

[Maxxtraxx]

17 minutes ago, stconquest said:

-snip-

You're dodging it like a politician. I asked you a simple question, you refuse to answer it because it would be difficult for you and it might point out that your point was in fact coming from a very biased point of view and that my question might in fact HAVE MERRIT.

 

You then proceed to degrade me by questioning my intelligence... that is a response that is both very childish and very much like a politician...

[stconquest]

12 minutes ago, Energycore said:

So who profits then? The armament companies. Which by the looks of it are not being run by very wise people at all.

Sure, the arms trade... definitely.

 

There is more to it though.  Think support, logistics for running a war campaign.  Feeding, clothing and housing the troops.  Stealing natural resources is very real.  The cost of running all the propaganda to rally for support among those at home.   All kinds of things cost money in war and many groups are bidding for the contracts.

 

Hell, the USA hired mercenary armies to secure personnel and to fight.  The US military body could not even do the fighting.. oh wait they could... so someone wanted to make a fortune and convinced someone it would be a good idea.

[Guest]

Locked.