41st President George H Bush Dead age 94

[Celista]

- So you're saying our souls might be around before we are born?

- Or there are no souls and nothing happens when you die?

I don't know. When you find out the answer, let me know which is correct

[Skroe]

Any other tactic risk a war theater within your borders. The cost of that is vastly, vastly greater.

Another way of putting it is, is you can pay a lot of money over a long period of time and lose some lives in minor conflicts, or pay a little money for long periods of time and then lose an enormous number of lives and pay an exorbitant sum, in a major conflict.

George H.W. Bush and his generation was acutely aware. They chose the long term investment strategy.

[Theodarzna]

Every single powerful state in history operated under this principle.

The United States will engage in it for as long as is worth discussing.

Similarly, get ready for Chinese Naval and Air bases in West Africa and Latin America in the next 20 years, for exactly the same reason.

Yet only the United States claims to be exceptional, different, uniquely good. Weird....

[Skroe]

Yet only the United States claims to be exceptional, different, uniquely good. Weird....

Haven't been paying close attention to what China's been saying about itself the past while, huh? Or in the not terribly distant past, what the Soviet Union said about itself and its mission in the world?

No. It's not unique at all. You just know the one you reference because you're close to it, and don't really know much about the world or history.

[Theodarzna]

Haven't been paying close attention to what China's been saying about itself the past while, huh? Or in the not terribly distant past, what the Soviet Union said about itself and its mission in the world?

No. It's not unique at all. You just know the one you reference because you're close to it, and don't really know much about the world or history.

China Claims to be the Middle Kingdom, but mostly wants to return to being the center of the world, which it was for thousands of years. And the Soviet Union was called evil for that belief, i wonder if you own any mirrors in your home.

[Skroe]

China Claims to be the Middle Kingdom, but mostly wants to return to being the center of the world, which it was for thousands of years.

No. First, that's just the tip of the iceberg of their modern Chinese nationalism. Second they were the center of the part of the world they lived in (East Asia), but far removed from the vibrant civilizations in Europe, South Asia and the Levant. Extrapolating their history as a regional hegemon (albeit one that warred with itself more than others) to their claims to being the "Center of the World" (as in the Whole of the world) is modern and illegitimate Chinese imperialism nonsense.

And the Soviet Union was called evil for that belief, i wonder if you own any mirrors in your home.

What a dumb reply. Also a ridiculous dodge. It's embarrassing you even tried it. We're talking about the things power states thought of themselves. The Soviet Union spent almost the entirety of its history trying to export a communist revolution and overthrow liberal democracy through the entirety of the world. They even sold it, perversely, by calling it "anti-imperialism" at some points. American exceptionalism and the primacy of liberal democracy as you know it arose as the rhetorical and principled counter to that.

Frankly, I'm not even doing it justice. Read a book if you want to see the scale of the Soviet Union's global ambitions. China's arent there yet. But they will be. America's though? We're the ones that survived.

Don't worry. If you get pissed off at American exceptionalism being in-your-face, it won't be terribly long before Chinese exceptionalism gets right up in it as well. You can insincerely "two sides" that too.

[Theodarzna]

No. First, that's just the tip of the iceberg of their modern Chinese nationalism. Second they were the center of the part of the world they lived in (East Asia), but far removed from the vibrant civilizations in Europe, South Asia and the Levant. Extrapolating their history as a regional hegemon (albeit one that warred with itself more than others) to their claims to being the "Center of the World" (as in the Whole of the world) is modern and illegitimate Chinese imperialism nonsense.

Lol, it is a bit telling that you call Europe Vibrant but not China, I mean it is a bit ethnocentric of you to assume that. The whole colonization of the New World owes itself to a desire to get to China quicker. Pretty much the last four hundred years of history owe trying to sell stuff and buy stuff in China a massive debt of gratitude. Our deep thirst for Chinese things or desire for China to want Europes manufactured stuff basically drove centuries of warfare, colonization and change on this planet.

Their claim to be the center of the world is both fitting given the role they've played in world history, but also is in their name for their country. 中國 in English means China, but more specifically the Middle Kingdom. 中 has the implied meaning of "Middle of the World".

Also what makes China's aspirations any less legitimate than the United States, the Soviet Union or Great Britains or Frances or any other country? Moreover desiring glory and respect is a far different thing than believing oneself on a quasi-divine mission to remake a planet in ones image.

We're talking about the things power states thought of themselves. The Soviet Union spent almost the entirety of its history trying to export a communist revolution and overthrow liberal democracy through the entirety of the world. They even sold it, perversely, by calling it "anti-imperialism" at some points. American exceptionalism and the primacy of liberal democracy as you know it arose as the rhetorical and principled counter to that.

Frankly, I'm not even doing it justice. Read a book if you want to see the scale of the Soviet Union's global ambitions. China's arent there yet. But they will be. America's though? We're the ones that survived.

Don't worry. If you get pissed off at American exceptionalism being in-your-face, it won't be terribly long before Chinese exceptionalism gets right up in it as well. You can insincerely "two sides" that too.

Yadda yadda yadda, another long terrible rant where you miss the point and fail to see the repugnance of your own hypocracy.

[Burgerberg]

No. Optimal costs about $950 billion.

Most of that is pay and healthcare. Operations and Acquisitions is a fraction of that. It costs "only" $300 million a year to operate a carrier (the most expensive piece of equipment) and annual budgeting to build the next one is about $1.something billion.

You don't like the $700 billion? It should be higher. Much higher. The reason it isn't is because we've spent the past 18 years asking our troops to go on three or four tours, or operate ships with only 70% their designed compliment. It's $700B, not $950B, because we have an military of 1.3 million Active Duty Troops that we relentlessly and immorally exploit, rather than the 1.8 million Active Duty troops that our global strategy calls for.

And "bring them home" is not a grown-ups solution either, because the overwhelming majority of US troops are in the US already. We just screw the ones we send out because we're too cheap to pay what it costs.

All that money to spend on bombing other countries, yet your country doesn't even have free healthcare for all. It's people like you that are responsible for such misery.

[Citizen T]

Take the foreign policy discussions elsewhere. You are derailing the thread.

[The Oblivion]

RIP, a great president who led a long and fulfilled life.

[Skroe]

Lol, it is a bit telling that you call Europe Vibrant but not China.

It shouldn't be. Of course China was vibrant. Weird comment. You read way too much into that.

The whole colonization of the New World owes itself to a desire to get to China quicker.

Originally yes. Because of trade. Trade =/= center of the world. Once the difference, and scale of the New World became clear, the whole "get to China" thing dissipated.

Pretty much the last four hundred years of history owe trying to sell stuff and buy stuff in China a massive debt of gratitude. Our deep thirst for Chinese things or desire for China to want Europes manufactured stuff basically drove centuries of warfare, colonization and change on this planet.

That's a farcical analysis of history. I'm not even sure where to begin. Trade with China 13th, 14th and 15th centuries was definitely a key objective of European economic policies. However in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, it was principally about exploitation of new dominions, trade opportunities and empires. Trade with China was part of that, but not a core part. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the focus was on "later" Empires and internal industrialization as the economic beating heart. China by contrast, had receded largely into backwardness and exploitation by its neighbors and Western powers. They still engaged in trade, but it was one destination among a whole globe of it by that point, and a lot of the most important economic activity was again, industrialization, which China wasn't doing.

I don't know where you picked up the ideas you did, but boy. They're simple. They're just very simple.

Their claim to be the center of the world is both fitting given the role they've played in world history, but also is in their name for their country. 中國 in English means China, but more specifically the Middle Kingdom. 中 has the implied meaning of "Middle of the World".

No. Again, they were the center of their "world", just as Rome was the center of its "world". They were always the most popoulous, but until the 13th century connection with parts of the world outside the East Asian region was so limited as to render the claim of being the "Center of the World" moot. As for it's name. Yes. That's nice. It's just a name.

Also what makes China's aspirations any less legitimate than the United States, the Soviet Union or Great Britains or Frances or any other country? Moreover desiring glory and respect is a far different thing than believing oneself on a quasi-divine mission to remake a planet in ones image.

Nothing. They are doing what all powerful countries do, which is exactly my point, and the one you walked around in your ongoing weird America-bashing. As to the second point here, China is doing that too. That is in fact exactly their 21st century mission. "Chinese Dream". "One Belt One Road". All the wonderful things China is doing in Western Universities and towards Western Journalists reporting on China? Yeah. I thought so.

Yadda yadda yadda, another long terrible rant where you miss the point and fail to see the repugnance of your own hypocracy.

Uh huh. Listen dude/lady/whatever you're pretending to be today. You said something rather dumb because you got a chip on your shoulder. No problem. We all do. You can own it or you can attempt weasel of it and hope that someone like me, who frankly, has a not very nice opinion of you and your abilities, won't call you on it.

It's always a pleasure when you try the latter and face plant, as you did in the quote above this one. You need to not do it. It doesn't ever work out for you.

- - - Updated - - -

Take the foreign policy discussions elsewhere. You are derailing the thread.

Sure thing. Posted the above reply before I saw this though. Just so we're clear.

[vashter]

Ok well that suck everything goes away real quick

[Realitytrembles]

This is the last time we discuss this Realitytrembles. You keep making these arguments. You don't know anything (really anything) about our, or world history, in the last 200 years. You don't care. You're deeply uneducated on the issue. You can keep waving your "nuke everybody" nonsense... and let's be clear, it's unmitigated nonsense that we're humoring you just by reading. But you do it again, I'm just going to throw you on ignore and forget you exist. I'm pretty much done wasting my time explaining the value of standing defense alliances to a guy who can't stay internally consistent as to how to look at the Constitution between two ideas, and whose foreign policy thought ends in 1796 with Washington's Farewell address.

I think you just can't bring yourself to accept that internationalist foreign policy isn't universally accepted as holy writ. My views are entirely consistent within themselves. Why?

A Constitutional process (judicial review), enacted by an institution established by the Constitution ( the SCotUS), clarified that the SCotUS has the authority to decide what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution.

I'll admit, that's the first time in my life I've been called uneducated. I'm very well read, and have a 4yr degree. I chose to become a butcher because it paid much better and had better benefits than what I was doing.

As for standing defense alliances, they certainly have pros, I'll admit. But do you want to know the reason I utterly disagree with the foreign policy of the US since 1945? Heck, not even then, but with our foreign policy since the the Spanish-American war?

Because despite their pros, the alliances have 1 huge, overwhelming con: their restrict our freedom of action, because we have to consider the opinions of non-Americans when deciding what we are going to do.

The US should be free to do whatever we want, whenever we damn well please. And anyone who gets in our way can go f themselves.

Ignore me if you want.


EDIT

@Thwart
Sorry didnt see your post, I clicked on post quote notifications and it took me straight to Skroe's post. I am done ITT. No more derailing.

[CostinR]

The last great American president, last WW2 veteran that served as president, last Cold War president and who pushed through Eastern Europe during a really bad time to become democratic. No easy feat I might add. He and Reagan are one of the main reasons why Eastern Europe enjoys the life it does currently. It sure isn't perfect but it's far better then the lacks of freedoms and rights under the communists.

I suppose it's fitting in a way as he died on the 100th year anniversary of my country's national day. The world became a better place because of men like Bush and it's one of the worst things that happened that he wasn't reelected to a second term: Because he was the one not just Eastern Europe but the world needed for a few more years since the transition for the east was still very much in progress and although Clinton and his team did try...they were dealing with things far above their pay grade.

Still many will remember Bush in Europe as a great leader. Certainly he did some fairly heinous things, but that's how the world works.

[Laerrus]

If Tom Hanks or Dave Grohl was President, they would serve with the kind of grace and dignity that George H.W. Bush did.

I wish more politicians were like him. He was one of the nicest people.



Those looks on their faces are priceless.

[gaymer77]

Oh, wow. RIP. I hope his passing was peaceful.

I don't hope so. Him and Reagan fucked over the LGBT community hard. I hope him & Reagan rot in hell.

[Skroe]

Watching the casket get loaded into Air Force One was actually very sad for me. Specifically watching George W. Bush.

Like W., I'm the first born (son). Like W. I followed a similar career path to my father (science). My father isn't just my dad, but also my mentor. My example. I never feel like I can quite measure up to his achievement (well, he did make a major scientific discovery by the age of 27).

Father-son stuff just is getting meas I've seen my father age the past decade. Even though my family is very long lived and I have many years more, today I feel a lot of things for George W. Bush.

In the end, death comes to us all.

[Unholyground]

Another criminal in the ground.

[Moadar]

Well I cant remember being in paradise or being tortured prior to my birth

I cant remember last week or most of whole years. Shit I must be phasing in and out of existenance.

[Hypasonic]

I cant remember last week or most of whole years. Shit I must be phasing in and out of existenance.

Nah probably just bad memory.