Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

War on Terror...WTF?

kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:15:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was reading an article earlier in an Express version of the Washington Post, and it talked about possibly sending ground troops to Yemen. Yemen has become a breeding ground for terrorism, especially around the Afghanistan border. It seems as though the "War on Terror" is taking yet another detour. Aren't our military troops already stretched thin? There supposedly isn't any intentions of sending forces in to Yemen just as of yet, or so we hear.

I am just blown away at the sheer ignorance of the initial strategy. I am not disputing that there are factions in the world who want seek to harm the US. It seems to be vehement disdain within the Islamic community, and in my opinion rightfully so. Even on this debate site, we have callous remarks like round all Arabs up, and don't worry about their rights being violated.

The American people are just witnessing what US aggression has done over the years, and now they are being spoon fed some "woe is me" story by the powers that be.

We say we are against torture, but what do we do? We have cronies from other countries who have deplorable human rights records do it,so we can keep our hands clean. No matter how large of a surge we take, we will continuously create more enemies. We are creating new generations of radicals who will take their crusade even further.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:19:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:15:46 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was reading an article earlier in an Express version of the Washington Post, and it talked about possibly sending ground troops to Yemen. Yemen has become a breeding ground for terrorism, especially around the Afghanistan border. It seems as though the "War on Terror" is taking yet another detour. Aren't our military troops already stretched thin? There supposedly isn't any intentions of sending forces in to Yemen just as of yet, or so we hear.

I am just blown away at the sheer ignorance of the initial strategy. I am not disputing that there are factions in the world who want seek to harm the US. It seems to be vehement disdain within the Islamic community, and in my opinion rightfully so. Even on this debate site, we have callous remarks like round all Arabs up, and don't worry about their rights being violated.

The American people are just witnessing what US aggression has done over the years, and now they are being spoon fed some "woe is me" story by the powers that be.

http://thehomelessguy.files.wordpress.com...

Err....you'll find most reputable members were against the Iraq invasion.

Besides, I don't think they're invading Yemen, rather, sending in troops to aid Yemen like in Pakistan.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:22:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It wouldn't be an invasion of Yemen, since it would be requested support. However, that offer was turned down by the Yemeni government.

The simple fact is that Yemen is much like Afghanistan. Its central government, while stronger than Karzai's, is still corrupt and still cannot extend itself into the more rugged terrain. And now, when there is actually signs of progress in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the West can't afford to let Yemen fall as well, especially given its strategic position on the shipping lanes of the Red Sea. This is the price we pay for being in a globalized world, and the price the United States pays for being a modern empire.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:26:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:22:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
And now, when there is actually signs of progress in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the West can't afford to let Yemen fall as well, especially given its strategic position on the shipping lanes of the Red Sea.

Because the US and the West have a great track record of creating successful government out of corrupt governments. Also, see: blowback.

This is the price we pay for being in a globalized world, and the price the United States pays for being a modern empire.

Exactly.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:28:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:26:10 PM, Nags wrote:
Because the US and the West have a great track record of creating successful government out of corrupt governments. Also, see: blowback.

The issue isn't over corrupt governance. The issue is over the central government's continued stability. In the name of pragmatism, we may simply have to deal with the corruption as-is, especially given that this is an already established government, something Kosovo, Afghanistan and others didn't have.

Exactly.

Well, lets sacrifice prosperity and become isolationists, then.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:29:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:28:34 PM, Volkov wrote:
The issue isn't over corrupt governance. The issue is over the central government's continued stability. In the name of pragmatism, we may simply have to deal with the corruption as-is, especially given that this is an already established government, something Kosovo, Afghanistan and others didn't have.

So... why mess with it?

Well, lets sacrifice prosperity and become isolationists, then.

Non-interventionism, and become more prosperous.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:38:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:29:59 PM, Nags wrote:
So... why mess with it?

We're not "messing" with it, we're helping it. More central control in Yemen is preferable to less, especially given who has support there, as well as the fact of Yemen's geographic position beside those nice little shipping routes.

Non-interventionism, and become more prosperous.

Alright, so we'll let Yemen fall to pieces, lose the Red Sea as a generally-safe shipping lane, and rake in the money we aren't getting from trade.

No. Just, no. The US won't survive in a globalized world without intervention. You simply can't do it. When your prosperity is dependent upon the continued stability of your trading partners, you are going to have to eventually intervene when the going gets tough. This is even more crucial when your security depends on it as well.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:46:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:38:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
We're not "messing" with it, we're helping it. More central control in Yemen is preferable to less, especially given who has support there, as well as the fact of Yemen's geographic position beside those nice little shipping routes.

WHY should we intervene in Yemen? By helping, your are messing - intervention doesn't have a good track record of helping anyone. What specifically would be done there anyway?

Alright, so we'll let Yemen fall to pieces, lose the Red Sea as a generally-safe shipping lane, and rake in the money we aren't getting from trade.

1. Fear-mongering.
2. Sniper on ship = ship still safe.
3. Doesn't matter if Yemen falls to pieces, and it won't anyway.

No. Just, no. The US won't survive in a globalized world without intervention. You simply can't do it. When your prosperity is dependent upon the continued stability of your trading partners, you are going to have to eventually intervene when the going gets tough. This is even more crucial when your security depends on it as well.

Prosperity isn't dependent on the stability of countries. Countries trade no matter how stable their government is - it's necessary for survival. If they don't, then everyone will suffer, not just the US. There are barely any countries in the history of foreign policy where intervention was used to continue trade with said country, it's always for political and military purposes. When we do intervene, we end up setting an even worse situation, and we generate blowback.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:58:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:46:55 PM, Nags wrote:
WHY should we intervene in Yemen? By helping, your are messing - intervention doesn't have a good track record of helping anyone. What specifically would be done there anyway?

"Messing" implies destroying the order already there; "helping" implies building or continuing that order, especially with that order's sanction and request.

1. Fear-mongering.

Reality.

2. Sniper on ship = ship still safe.

So, you're asking that either state military, or private military, or paramilitary, forces stay on ships to possibly combat pirating, while tacking on extra costs and having the possibility of being barred at ports across the world? Good idea!

3. Doesn't matter if Yemen falls to pieces, and it won't anyway.

It does matter, because Yemen is a key Western ally, and allows us to continue to keep safe those routes, combat pirating, and keep open one of the biggest trade routes in the world. Nevermind that this is Bin Laden's home turf, and if we give him more turf now, then that isn't going to be very favourable.

Prosperity isn't dependent on the stability of countries. Countries trade no matter how stable their government is - it's necessary for survival.

Wrong Answer Number One.

Trade is dependent upon something being there to trade with. When countries become unstable, then trade drops, because there is not only no stable central government to help trade push along, but no private companies are willing to go into unstable territories and set up shop. When instability is prevalent, then commercial trading goes down. That is a fact of life.

If they don't, then everyone will suffer, not just the US. There are barely any countries in the history of foreign policy where intervention was used to continue trade with said country, it's always for political and military purposes. When we do intervene, we end up setting an even worse situation, and we generate blowback.

Political... political... hm... what entails "political purposes"? Oh, I know! Trade.

As for "blowback," this will happen no matter what you do. Hell, if you trade with a country, you generate blowback. Every action gets a reaction. It is as simple as that. And do you honestly believe that the Balkans are now currently worse off than they were under Milosevic's reign? That's a good point on the interventionist scorecard.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:24:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:58:58 PM, Volkov wrote:
"Messing" implies destroying the order already there; "helping" implies building or continuing that order, especially with that order's sanction and request.

By helping, you're hurting.

Reality.

Prove it.

So, you're asking that either state military, or private military, or paramilitary, forces stay on ships to possibly combat pirating, while tacking on extra costs and having the possibility of being barred at ports across the world? Good idea!

Private security.

It does matter, because Yemen is a key Western ally, and allows us to continue to keep safe those routes, combat pirating, and keep open one of the biggest trade routes in the world. Nevermind that this is Bin Laden's home turf, and if we give him more turf now, then that isn't going to be very favourable.

Lol @ Bin Laden. If he is still alive, he doesn't have any power. By bombing citizens, you just give more recruitment tools to Al-Qaeda. If your Dad got shot by a foreign military and did nothing wrong, would you want to join forces against said military. Blowback.

Wrong Answer Number One.

Trade is dependent upon something being there to trade with. When countries become unstable, then trade drops, because there is not only no stable central government to help trade push along, but no private companies are willing to go into unstable territories and set up shop. When instability is prevalent, then commercial trading goes down. That is a fact of life.

That was completely false. Take, for example, the Ivory Coast. Coups and civil war is prevalent, yet the export of chocolate is always steady and profitable.

Political... political... hm... what entails "political purposes"? Oh, I know! Trade.

No, that's economic.

As for "blowback," this will happen no matter what you do. Hell, if you trade with a country, you generate blowback. Every action gets a reaction. It is as simple as that. And do you honestly believe that the Balkans are now currently worse off than they were under Milosevic's reign? That's a good point on the interventionist scorecard.

LOLOLOL. You bring up the Kosovo War as a good point for interventionism? Oh god. Blowback is the reason for American animosity, 9/11, and 99.9% of attempted and successful attacks by radical Islamics. Not worth it to protect your trading interests (as you argue), in Yemen of all places.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:33:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:24:21 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/6/2010 12:58:58 PM, Volkov wrote:

Trade is dependent upon something being there to trade with. When countries become unstable, then trade drops, because there is not only no stable central government to help trade push along, but no private companies are willing to go into unstable territories and set up shop. When instability is prevalent, then commercial trading goes down. That is a fact of life.

That was completely false. Take, for example, the Ivory Coast. Coups and civil war is prevalent, yet the export of chocolate is always steady and profitable.


Yes, becuase other countries produce chocolate
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:35:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:29:59 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/6/2010 12:28:34 PM, Volkov wrote:
The issue isn't over corrupt governance. The issue is over the central government's continued stability. In the name of pragmatism, we may simply have to deal with the corruption as-is, especially given that this is an already established government, something Kosovo, Afghanistan and others didn't have.

So... why mess with it?

Well, lets sacrifice prosperity and become isolationists, then.

Non-interventionism, and become more prosperous.

To whose demise though?...The expansion of the US agenda means tougher times somewhere else. Seems to me that the more modernized nations have given themselves a mandate to tell everyone else how they should govern themselves.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:38:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:33:52 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Yes, becuase other countries produce chocolate

The Ivory Coast has continued to produce and export chocolate at a steady and profitable rate through civil wars and coups. What are you talking about?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:39:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:38:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:33:52 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Yes, becuase other countries produce chocolate

The Ivory Coast has continued to produce and export chocolate at a steady and profitable rate through civil wars and coups. What are you talking about?

Sources?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:39:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:35:30 PM, kelly224 wrote:
To whose demise though?...The expansion of the US agenda means tougher times somewhere else. Seems to me that the more modernized nations have given themselves a mandate to tell everyone else how they should govern themselves.

Non-interventionism is the opposite of expanding US agenda. I agree that Country A shouldn't tell Country B what to do.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:41:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:39:07 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:38:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:33:52 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Yes, becuase other countries produce chocolate

The Ivory Coast has continued to produce and export chocolate at a steady and profitable rate through civil wars and coups. What are you talking about?

Sources?

http://www.treehugger.com...
http://www.corpwatch.org...
http://money.cnn.com...
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:42:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:38:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/6/2010 12:29:59 PM, Nags wrote:
So... why mess with it?

We're not "messing" with it, we're helping it. More central control in Yemen is preferable to less, especially given who has support there, as well as the fact of Yemen's geographic position beside those nice little shipping routes.

Non-interventionism, and become more prosperous.

Alright, so we'll let Yemen fall to pieces, lose the Red Sea as a generally-safe shipping lane, and rake in the money we aren't getting from trade.

No. Just, no. The US won't survive in a globalized world without intervention. You simply can't do it. When your prosperity is dependent upon the continued stability of your trading partners, you are going to have to eventually intervene when the going gets tough. This is even more crucial when your security depends on it as well.

I don't particularly think that intervention works in all cases. Yes, the US feels compelled to protect it's interests, but it seems that sometimes the US' interests are always at stake. Terrorism takes precedent over ever other issue it seems, even our domestic agenda. I don't think you can ever squelch a countries need to control it's own destiny. There are times when America should just bud out, we are not the sole voice who chooses what's right for everyone else.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:43:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:41:28 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:39:07 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:38:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:33:52 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Yes, becuase other countries produce chocolate

The Ivory Coast has continued to produce and export chocolate at a steady and profitable rate through civil wars and coups. What are you talking about?

Sources?

http://www.treehugger.com...
http://www.corpwatch.org...
http://money.cnn.com...

That talks about corruption within the Ivory Coasts chocolate industry, not something comparing the coca productivity with the coups and civil war
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:45:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yemen happens to be an ally, but has alot of folks who have a deep disdain for Amercia. There is no Arab country that does not hate the US.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:45:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:24:21 PM, Nags wrote:
By helping, you're hurting.

So, by fulfilling the request of a central government to help, we're hurting that central government? That might be the case with Yemen specifically, but thats why we aren't going there, and why Yemen hasn't taken up any offer.

Prove it.

What, exactly? That Yemen is a haven for terrorism and Al-Qaeda? OK.

http://www.cfr.org...
http://www.time.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...

Lol @ Bin Laden. If he is still alive, he doesn't have any power. By bombing citizens, you just give more recruitment tools to Al-Qaeda. If your Dad got shot by a foreign military and did nothing wrong, would you want to join forces against said military. Blowback.

If your father lost his job because there was increased trade, would you want to support that trade? Blowback.

That was completely false. Take, for example, the Ivory Coast. Coups and civil war is prevalent, yet the export of chocolate is always steady and profitable.

The GDP per capita of the Ivory Coast is also about $1700. Woo! Look at all that prosperity!.....

Meanwhile, other profitable sectors of the economy have dwindled down to nothing due to the constant instability, which is a strikingly different situation from the Ivory Coast's former reputation as an economic powerhouse when it was stable.

http://www.estandardsforum.org...

No, that's economic.

Yes, and the economy never factors into any political decisions ever.

LOLOLOL. You bring up the Kosovo War as a good point for interventionism? Oh god. Blowback is the reason for American animosity, 9/11, and 99.9% of attempted and successful attacks by radical Islamics.

You keep throwing around this word "blowback" without realizing what it actually entails.

Blowback comes from every single action on the diplomatic stage, including simple trade. You're going to get it from any action in any place. There will always be animosity, and considering that the US is a global powerhouse, this animosity should always be expected. You cannot be "non-interventionist" and live in the globalized world.

Not worth it to protect your trading interests (as you argue), in Yemen of all places.

That isn't my only argument. Not only does it deal with trade, but with security as well. There is no going back at this point with Al-Qaeda and others, and Yemen is a huge keg of instability and future issues if we let it go down the drain.

However, just remember that I'm playing devil's advocate here. I only support actions when its requested, and only if that request is reasonable and practical. If Yemen asked, then I would say we should help, but they aren't going to, and there is absolutely no reason for us to get involved any more than we have to be.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:47:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:45:23 PM, kelly224 wrote:
Yemen happens to be an ally, but has alot of folks who have a deep disdain for Amercia. There is no Arab country that does not hate the US.

See: Israel
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:47:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:43:39 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
That talks about corruption within the Ivory Coasts chocolate industry, not something comparing the coca productivity with the coups and civil war

Exactly. Profits and exports stay steady even though civil wars and coups are going on.

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://internationalaffairs.suite101.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:51:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:47:49 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:43:39 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
That talks about corruption within the Ivory Coasts chocolate industry, not something comparing the coca productivity with the coups and civil war

Exactly. Profits and exports stay steady even though civil wars and coups are going on.

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://internationalaffairs.suite101.com...

Picking out 1 specific sector of the economy and saying it was fine doesn't mean the economy on the whole. No doubt regular farming was affected, as well as industries where people were drafted.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:57:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:45:34 PM, Volkov wrote:
So, by fulfilling the request of a central government to help, we're hurting that central government? That might be the case with Yemen specifically, but thats why we aren't going there, and why Yemen hasn't taken up any offer.

Asking for help means the US should give help? Either way, oppressing one party or supporting one side of a civil war is never a smart idea.

What, exactly? That Yemen is a haven for terrorism and Al-Qaeda? OK.

http://www.cfr.org...
http://www.time.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...

Mmmkay, I know that. Prove that Yemen will collapse and disrupt US trade or whatever conspiracy you are spouting.

If your father lost his job because there was increased trade, would you want to support that trade? Blowback.

Why would a father lose his job because of increased trade? lol

The GDP per capita of the Ivory Coast is also about $1700. Woo! Look at all that prosperity!.....

That's not my point, at all. My point is that the Ivory Coast still produces and exports cocoa/chocolate which the US consumer wants even though coups and civil wars are going on.

Meanwhile, other profitable sectors of the economy have dwindled down to nothing due to the constant instability, which is a strikingly different situation from the Ivory Coast's former reputation as an economic powerhouse when it was stable.

http://www.estandardsforum.org...

I don't care about the Ivory Coast's prosperity.

Yes, and the economy never factors into any political decisions ever.

k... what we were talking about here?

You keep throwing around this word "blowback" without realizing what it actually entails.

Blowback comes from every single action on the diplomatic stage, including simple trade. You're going to get it from any action in any place. There will always be animosity, and considering that the US is a global powerhouse, this animosity should always be expected. You cannot be "non-interventionist" and live in the globalized world.

No, there won't be animosity if we don't intervene militarily and take sides in foreign conflicts. Most countries are non-interventionist and do fine in the globalized world, like the other great capitalist countries - Japan and Australia.

That isn't my only argument. Not only does it deal with trade, but with security as well. There is no going back at this point with Al-Qaeda and others, and Yemen is a huge keg of instability and future issues if we let it go down the drain.

I've already proved that trade doesn't change with instability. And tell me how Yemen is a threat to the US. The only reason the Radical Islamics hate us if because of our occupation there. Why did that Yemeni try to bomb the US plane on Xmas... http://www.presstv.ir...

However, just remember that I'm playing devil's advocate here. I only support actions when its requested, and only if that request is reasonable and practical. If Yemen asked, then I would say we should help, but they aren't going to, and there is absolutely no reason for us to get involved any more than we have to be.

Well, I disagree.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:59:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:51:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Picking out 1 specific sector of the economy and saying it was fine doesn't mean the economy on the whole. No doubt regular farming was affected, as well as industries where people were drafted.

The Ivory Coast is the largest producer of cocoa in the world. They don't produce or export much else. If you'd like to show me how the US or another country has been negatively affected because of the loss of an export because of Ivory Coast conflicts, I'd love to see it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 2:32:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:57:29 PM, Nags wrote:
Asking for help means the US should give help? Either way, oppressing one party or supporting one side of a civil war is never a smart idea.

Sure it is. It's called being practical, and knowing when to pick your allies and your enemies.

Mmmkay, I know that. Prove that Yemen will collapse and disrupt US trade or whatever conspiracy you are spouting.

"Conspiracy"? Meaning, I have to show proof of a well known fact that if instability continues to grow along major trade routes, it can have severe economic implications? Well, alright then:

http://www.springerlink.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
http://www.humansecuritygateway.com...

Why would a father lose his job because of increased trade? lol

Are you serious? This is the most inept thing I've ever heard you say. If you don't understand the implications of international trade on local economies, then I don't know what to tell you.

That's not my point, at all. My point is that the Ivory Coast still produces and exports cocoa/chocolate which the US consumer wants even though coups and civil wars are going on.

So, your point is that, even though the constant instability within the country has brought down prosperity and trade and basic economic performance to almost zero, because they're still producing chocolate, its evidence that instability doesn't affect trade or commercial business... 'Kay

k... what we were talking about here?

I said, "trade falls under political diplomacy." You said it falls under economic. I essentially said "economics factors in to political diplomacy as well." You offered no response, as usual.

No, there won't be animosity if we don't intervene militarily and take sides in foreign conflicts. Most countries are non-interventionist and do fine in the globalized world, like the other great capitalist countries - Japan and Australia.

Oh, alright, lets see then...

Japan: deficit/debt is 200% of GDP, collapsing welfare systems, inflation like you've never seen, and essentially corralled by other governments due to their military history. Very unique situation.

Australia: relatively in good shape, went to Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, and participated in several other interventionist peacekeeping missions. Hardly "non-interventionist."

For giggles, China: economic power, but heavily interventionist economically, setting up foreign interests across the Third World, including, but not limited to, intervention in the Somali pirate business, Spratly Islands, setting up Chinese-language seminars in other countries, and a major player with Iran, North Korea, and others; permanent member of Security Council.

I've already proved that trade doesn't change with instability. And tell me how Yemen is a threat to the US. The only reason the Radical Islamics hate us if because of our occupation there. Why did that Yemeni try to bomb the US plane on Xmas... http://www.presstv.ir...

One, he was a Nigerian, directed by Yemeni Al-Qaeda. Two, you proved nothing at all, and instead tried to rely on some argument which essentially says "since there is still something trading, even though the country has essentially collapsed economically, you're wrong!".
deathdebater
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 2:40:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:35:30 PM, kelly224 wrote:
Lets allow terrorists to have a base and allow them to destroy a peaceful government that is Pro-US. I'm sure once the terrorists are in control things will be so much better for the US

lol wut
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 2:44:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 2:40:42 PM, deathdebater wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:35:30 PM, kelly224 wrote:
Lets allow terrorists to have a base and allow them to destroy a peaceful government that is Pro-US. I'm sure once the terrorists are in control things will be so much better for the US

lol wut

Yeah... I'm not so sure you could call the Yemeni government "peaceful," and be completely sane of mind.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 3:00:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 2:32:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
Sure it is. It's called being practical, and knowing when to pick your allies and your enemies.

Enemies? The anti-government entities in Yemen pose a threat to the national security of the US? Is there Just Cause - are we correcting a grave evil or have we been attacked, or being threatened by attack? No. Is there probable success - do we have a good chance of winning? No.

http://www.springerlink.com...

Wow, that guy is a genius. His paper shows that instability hurts the economy of said instable country. That doesn't prove it hurts other countries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Guns on ships = pirate fail.

http://www.humansecuritygateway.com...

Orly? Al-Qaeda has been increasing in size since 2004, wow that's great. Hmm, it just so happens that the US started bombing the sh1t out of Yemen in 2004.

Are you serious? This is the most inept thing I've ever heard you say. If you don't understand the implications of international trade on local economies, then I don't know what to tell you.

No, I don't understand. Please explain.

So, your point is that, even though the constant instability within the country has brought down prosperity and trade and basic economic performance to almost zero, because they're still producing chocolate, its evidence that instability doesn't affect trade or commercial business... 'Kay

It doesn't hurt the UNITED STATES, that's my point. Instabilities of countries don't hurt international trade, that's my point.

I said, "trade falls under political diplomacy." You said it falls under economic. I essentially said "economics factors in to political diplomacy as well." You offered no response, as usual.

It still falls into economic diplomacy, so it's not like you won an argument here.

Oh, alright, lets see then...

Japan: deficit/debt is 200% of GDP, collapsing welfare systems, inflation like you've never seen, and essentially corralled by other governments due to their military history. Very unique situation.

Australia: relatively in good shape, went to Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, and participated in several other interventionist peacekeeping missions. Hardly "non-interventionist."

For giggles, China: economic power, but heavily interventionist economically, setting up foreign interests across the Third World, including, but not limited to, intervention in the Somali pirate business, Spratly Islands, setting up Chinese-language seminars in other countries, and a major player with Iran, North Korea, and others; permanent member of Security Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)_per_capita

Australia is 16th, US is 17th, Japan is 25th, China is 107th.

One, he was a Nigerian, directed by Yemeni Al-Qaeda. Two, you proved nothing at all, and instead tried to rely on some argument which essentially says "since there is still something trading, even though the country has essentially collapsed economically, you're wrong!".

You are wrong, what don't you get? It doesn't matter to the US if the economy of the Ivory Coast has collapsed, as long as the Ivory Coast continues to export and produce goods at the same rate, which they do.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 3:01:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 2:44:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/6/2010 2:40:42 PM, deathdebater wrote:
At 1/6/2010 1:35:30 PM, kelly224 wrote:
Lets allow terrorists to have a base and allow them to destroy a peaceful government that is Pro-US. I'm sure once the terrorists are in control things will be so much better for the US

lol wut

Yeah... I'm not so sure you could call the United States government "peaceful," and be completely sane of mind.

Fixed.