15 Nov 20
1 edit
@divegeester saidAwww, come on man. You're just angry for walking into your own trap.
You Trump fanboys truly are the lower-brained primates of the western world aren’t you.
It’s just a fuking hanky for your face to help reduce the amount of revolting spray and slobber emanating from your facial orifice. It’s a HANKY! Remember being taught to put a HANKY to your face when you coughed or sneezed?
You asked if I think Trump will get less than 306 electoral votes. I said yes, and you said I'm wrong.Let us review what happened here:
1. You lit bag of poo on fire
2. You placed flaming bag of poo on your front porch
3. You stepped on flaming bag of poo
I honestly didn't think you would walk straight into your own trap... but you did.
15 Nov 20
2 edits
@lemon-lime saidAs Lord Palmerston is reputed to have said, states have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. The US is an ally of Israel because it perceives that this alliance has, in recent decades, suited its interests. This need not always be the case. The US should consider whether the alliance with Israel continues to serve American interests. (I should add, this isn't an "anti-Israel" statement - I'd expect the US and every other country continually to re-evaluate its international ties).
Why would the US, an ally of Israel (sans Obama devotees) want to make it easier for iran to attack Israel?
Russia, China and Iran obviously have different agendas and methodologies. The worrisome part is what they have in common. They care as much about their own people as they do the neighbouring countries they wish to take over and control. China in particular has do ...[text shortened]... ing with land grabs.
Watch out Tiawan, there's a new sheriff in town... and his name is Bidensan.
Iran has a different agenda in part because we've chosen to pursue an antagonistic policy towards it for the past forty years. Circumstances have changed drastically since 1979, but US policy towards Iran remains basically unchanged, despite Obama's best efforts. Similarly, the US maintains an alliance with Saudi Arabia despite the fact that that alliance was revealed to be drastically counterproductive nearly twenty years ago.
15 Nov 20
@teinosuke saidI don't regard your position as "anti-Israel", but we do differ insofar as ideological principles are concerned.
As Lord Palmerston is reputed to have said, states have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. The US is an ally of Israel because it perceives that this alliance has, in recent decades, suited its interests. This need not always be the case. The US should consider whether the alliance with Israel continues to serve American interests. (I should add, this isn't an " ...[text shortened]... he fact that that alliance was revealed to be drastically counterproductive nearly twenty years ago.
Every country has the right to serve its own interests as long as it's strictly an in-house effort, just as I have the right to take care of my household without intruding on someone elses domain.
However, I don't believe serving American interests should be limited to self-serving interests.
Iran will funnel money and supplies to terrorist orgs whether we regard them as an ally or not. They won't change just because a handsome smooth talking Obama wants them to 'change' (?)
And changed how, in what way? What exactly was Obama trying to accomplish with Iran, other than help them in their stated purpose to drive Israel into the sea?
I've lived long enough to know the difference between a friendly and polite enemy, and a cranky foulmouthed friend.
15 Nov 20
2 edits
@lemon-lime saidIran will funnel money and supplies to terrorist orgs whether we regard them as an ally or not.
I don't regard your position as "anti-Israel", but we do differ insofar as ideological principles are concerned.
Every country has the right to serve its own interests as long as it's strictly an in-house effort, just as I have the right to take care of my household without intruding on someone elses domain.
However, I don't believe serving American interests should be l ...[text shortened]... enough to know the difference between a friendly and polite enemy, and a cranky foulmouthed friend.
Yes, but hardly any terrorist attacks on American soil or elsewhere on Western soil have been committed by Iranian-sponsored interests. 9/11 and the numerous other jihadist attacks that have taken place in the West since then have been directly fostered by the ideological propaganda purveyed by the United States' official Middle Eastern allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and paid for by Western oil money.
To be honest, if I had been President of the United States on September 12th, 2001, I would have immediately authorised a bombing campaign targeting Saudi Arabia's oil fields and all related infrastructure. Of course a strategic alliance with Iran would have been a necessary component of that "self-serving" ( if you will; I'd prefer to call it "self-defence" ) policy - our energy needs have to be supplied somehow - but although the Iranian regime is mean and cruel in many respects, that alliance would have been a price worth paying to reduce Saudi Arabia to impoverishment and impotence.
Interesting, in c.2002 the strongly pro-Israeli strategist Richard Perle advocated the dismemberment of Saudi Arabia (probably into three parts - a sacred state in charge of Mecca and Medina, an Eastern, Shia-dominated state in charge of the oil, and a Sunni state in the middle around Riyadh, in charge of nothing).
16 Nov 20
@ashiitaka said*COUGH*weeaboo*COUGH*
What a wild overreaction, if not a war crime!
If it makes any difference, I don't believe the reaction comes from a western perspective.
I ought to clarify that I do not consider myself to be a westerner in outlook.
16 Nov 20
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidI'm South African.
*COUGH*weeaboo*COUGH*
I studied Japanese as a hobby. Unfortunately, my teacher passed away last year. It is "ugly American" to assume that anyone who could show more than superficial interest in various Asian countries (China, Japan, India, Iran, etc), which have long and rich histories equal (or in the possible case of China alone, exceeding) that of Western Europe and North America, must be a "weaboo". And I'm not a fatuous dilettante.
I have always been interested in China as well. Westerners assume that everybody hates China as much they do. In fact, although South Africa has no enemies (and thus has no need for formal alliances), China is its largest trading partner and, along with Russia, its closest ally, although I favour China. All three are members of:
Brazil
Russia
India
China
South Africa
(BRICS)
My university is top 10 in the developing world along with Tsinghua in China and Lomonosov in Russia. This, combined with the fact
there is greater mobility between BRICS countries means that it is very popular with Chinese students, who also master English in an environment that is not hostile to them. My closest research partner is a Chinese woman.
I think anyone who is not suffering from selective memory regarding history will give America credit as not being history's greatest villain, or actually anywhere close. People these days have forgotten how bad the world used to be. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. The stereotyping of interest in Asia as "weaboo" or "nerdy" needs to go.
In fact, America and China should both realize that neither is the villain that Europe thinks they are, and that neither needs to beg for scraps of European approval, especially given Europe's less-than-stellar record. They can learn to share power and be friends.