A great explanation for why American military hegemony is a necessary evil.

[Laize]

20 years ago?

What sane person was actually scared of Russia in 1992? By which i do not mean militant outfits with money to buy nukes but the country and the country's intention

Fine... 25 years.... before the Iron Curtain fell.

[GreatOak]

95% my ass. Obviously cooked statistics.

And I never said the EU is a military power, they do have the resources to muster up a decent military though.

I bet Kim Jong Il's approval ratings are still higher than Putin's, and Kim isn't dead. He just transitioned into lich status

[Deleted]

i bet kim jong il's approval ratings are still higher than putin's, and kim isn't dead. He just transitioned into lich status

there must always be... A kim jong il

[GreatOak]

Really? The US is suddenly the only nation in the world with a patriotic crowd? Apologies, but when the last time you had a president with over 55% of a popular vote was in 1984, there's a chance that your country's political atmosphere is severely polarized and thus weakening. As for allies, it has plenty. Why do you think it has been protecting Iran? Its showing nations that if they side with China, the US has less power over them. The situation with Iran polarizes the nations substantially.

I found this

[ringpriest]

I'm not moving the goalposts. How could the US companies have been trying to exert influence to get Afghanistan's resources when we entered the war, when we didn't even know those resources existed until several years into the war?

Your initial claim was that corporations didn't care about Afghanistan. I pointed out that they did. Only then did you start talking about timelines and degrees of investment. That's moving the goalposts.

Exxon is only bidding on a portion of the field you're describing in the North, not the whole field. It's described in article as a "modest concession." The lion's share is going to Chinese, Indian, and Afghan companies. As for the article you just linked, I looked at the "recent stories" part of that page, and it's ALL anti-US slander pieces. You can't tell me that this is a reliable unbiased source of information.

I see... a site doesn't conform to your view of the world, so it can't possibly be correct. Are their facts correct? Is there logic sound? If not, why not? Instead you just claim they're biased, then ignore what they have to say. If they are right, maybe you should think about what you believe and why you believe it. As for Exxon, how much Afghan oil they end up with isn't the point. (Earlier, you were arguing that they weren't even interested!) As I said earlier in the thread:

Now, this may all end up being moot, between the war failing and the Chinese potentially outmanuvering U.S. corporations.

I've never argued that Afghanistan was a successful occupation for U.S. corporations, just that the motivation behind it was corporate greed.

Just like we do now in Afghanistan, right?

Completely sidestepping the issue. You claimed the U.S. intervenes for non-commercial reasons. I presented some cases where intervention would have been justified on several levels, but where the U.S. had no commercial reason to intervene. Your response is to avoid the point in question and engage in a fallacy of false equivalence. I never claimed Afghanistan and Congo were identical. In fact, I pointed out that they were different. Nice rhetorical tricks.

OK, so corporations are the secret masters of our military instigating plots to overthrow foreign governments, yet they aren't intelligent or competent? Riiiight.

False equivalence again. Pushing the U.S. government to act is a matter of connections, influence, and familiarity with the American political system. Successfully capturing the high-profit portions of a country's economy requires a different set of skills. Look at Iraq, where the U.S.-created provisional government stated that the intent was to only allow in U.S. and allied corporations, yet America still managed to fail at the local/international political game so that the Chinese are getting a share of the action there as well.

Or, if you prefer, look at former Vice-President Cheney. A man who was able to get elected V.P. twice, and set up favorable government contracts for his company (KBR/Haliburton). Yet such an idiot that he manged to shoot his hunting partner, while his company ended up being fined tens of millions for defrauding the government.

I think the New York Times is generally a good publication, but they aren't infallible, and the fact that Bin Laden was tracked and found by the CIA belies the idea that the CIA wasn't really looking for him.

You're claiming that because he was (eventually) caught, the rest of the Bin Laden 'hunt' must have gone the way you think it did, and that people who say different must be wrong, period. That's terrible logic. But since you apparently won't believe otherwise undisputed facts about the CIA's unconcern for catching him, here's a clip of President Bush talking about hunting bin Laden back in 2006:


Some quotes from the above video:
"The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission."

"I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

We've been back and forth in this thread multiple times now. You haven't presented a single reference, or a single logical argument. If something is not how you think it should be, you're simply going to ignore evidence to contrary. I hope you have better reasoning skills when it comes to things that directly impact your life.

[Reeve]

Your initial claim was that corporations didn't care about Afghanistan. I pointed out that they did. Only then did you start talking about timelines and degrees of investment. That's moving the goalposts.



I see... a site doesn't conform to your view of the world, so it can't possibly be correct. Are their facts correct? Is there logic sound? If not, why not? Instead you just claim they're biased, then ignore what they have to say. If they are right, maybe you should think about what you believe and why you believe it. As for Exxon, how much Afghan oil they end up with isn't the point. (Earlier, you were arguing that they weren't even interested!) As I said earlier in the thread:

I've never argued that Afghanistan was a successful occupation for U.S. corporations, just that the motivation behind it was corporate greed.



Completely sidestepping the issue. You claimed the U.S. intervenes for non-commercial reasons. I presented some cases where intervention would have been justified on several levels, but where the U.S. had no commercial reason to intervene. Your response is to avoid the point in question and engage in a fallacy of false equivalence. I never claimed Afghanistan and Congo were identical. In fact, I pointed out that they were different. Nice rhetorical tricks.



False equivalence again. Pushing the U.S. government to act is a matter of connections, influence, and familiarity with the American political system. Successfully capturing the high-profit portions of a country's economy requires a different set of skills. Look at Iraq, where the U.S.-created provisional government stated that the intent was to only allow in U.S. and allied corporations, yet America still managed to fail at the local/international political game so that the Chinese are getting a share of the action there as well.

Or, if you prefer, look at former Vice-President Cheney. A man who was able to get elected V.P. twice, and set up favorable government contracts for his company (KBR/Haliburton). Yet such an idiot that he manged to shoot his hunting partner, while his company ended up being fined tens of millions for defrauding the government.



You're claiming that because he was (eventually) caught, the rest of the Bin Laden 'hunt' must have gone the way you think it did, and that people who say different must be wrong, period. That's terrible logic. But since you apparently won't believe otherwise undisputed facts about the CIA's unconcern for catching him, here's a clip of President Bush talking about hunting bin Laden back in 2006:


Some quotes from the above video:
"The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission."

"I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

We've been back and forth in this thread multiple times now. You haven't presented a single reference, or a single logical argument. If something is not how you think it should be, you're simply going to ignore evidence to contrary. I hope you have better reasoning skills when it comes to things that directly impact your life.

I was going to write a big long post addressing each one of your points, and where you have misinterpreted my words (particularly where you claim my initial claim was something it wasn't) or sidestepped them with references and all that jazz. Then I realized I really don't care that much about winning this argument with you. So hats off to you, sir. You win. Continue believing what you believe and I'll do the same, which is how this discussion was always destined to end anyway.