What's up with Devin Nunes?
28 Mar 2017, 10:30 pm
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The Rust Belt existed since the 80s and earlier. Even if your struggling in the Rust Belt you are not living in a third world country, the government can afford to provide for you. Your family is not part of a mission to be wiped out. That is a real reality in the case of genocide, someone is trying to destroy you and your family. It seems to me you seem to advocating that the people who have more should be helped at the expense of those who stand to lose everything.
Okay, well if another Kosovo genocide type incident takes place like the one in 1998, then sure the US along with the UK and Western Europe, should probably step in.
But there's been many many many other situations the United States has involved itself in playing babysitter. To the point where the US is expected to fix every single problem and continue to take in swarms of people. It's not going to help anyone if the US ends up collapsing under all that weight.
The rest of the world needs to start behaving and looking after themselves. NZ is a small isolated country and it manages to be self sufficient. Same with Iceland and a lot of other small countries. I think it's time for the others to get their act together. Or time for someone else to play babysitter. But nobody else is going to take on that role of course.
Hey EzraS here is a question for you. If your an oppressed minority say a Tutsi in Rwanda is it your fault that your own government hates you?
Its weird because you seem to be implying that a country is responsible for their own problems but if you are an oppressed minority thing is they are not.
I think there's a difference between helping and babysitting. You are continually mentioning 2 or 3 places out of certain period of time involving extreme circumstances. If it was limited to just a couple of countries experiencing a genocide situation back in the 90's this wouldn't be an issue.
It's like anyone talking about the US not being so involved in world wide affairs these days anymore, that somehow has an impact on what took place 25 years ago in two places.
Yes, like I already said, the US along with the UK and Western Europe should help in times of a genocide, or a massive tsunami, or a massive earth quake. But the US shouldn't be expected to babysit other places and be the only source of help or refuge. Other capable countries should step in and incapable countries should get their act together - it's like there's not supposed to be any responsibility on their part.
I'm not talking about the civilian population of other countries getting their act together, I'm talking about those who run those countries getting their act together and taking responsibility, instead of it being the idea that the United States is supposed to do it for them. And I mean all of them all of the time... these days.
I agree it is frustrating that an evil government will willingly massacre much of its population. But they do not care and we cannot rely on them at all to change their policies. The only action that can be done to stop genocide is foreign intervention, if we do not do that than these atrocities will continue and continue.
I don't think we have anything we are disagreeing on.
Last edited by Shahunshah on 28 Mar 2017, 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
28 Mar 2017, 10:31 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Rwanda would of probably been better off if France didn't support and arm their genocidal Hutu-dominated government
No doubt. But what I am doing is advocating for intervention in the case of genocide.What about the mountains of intervention not involving a holocaust? That's what I've been talking about.
28 Mar 2017, 10:32 pm
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Rwanda would of probably been better off if France didn't support and arm their genocidal Hutu-dominated government
No doubt. But what I am doing is advocating for intervention in the case of genocide.What about the mountains of intervention not involving a holocaust? That's what I've been talking about.
Explain?
29 Mar 2017, 1:38 am
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The Rust Belt existed since the 80s and earlier. Even if your struggling in the Rust Belt you are not living in a third world country, the government can afford to provide for you. Your family is not part of a mission to be wiped out. That is a real reality in the case of genocide, someone is trying to destroy you and your family. It seems to me you seem to advocating that the people who have more should be helped at the expense of those who stand to lose everything.
Okay, well if another Kosovo genocide type incident takes place like the one in 1998, then sure the US along with the UK and Western Europe, should probably step in.
But there's been many many many other situations the United States has involved itself in playing babysitter. To the point where the US is expected to fix every single problem and continue to take in swarms of people. It's not going to help anyone if the US ends up collapsing under all that weight.
The rest of the world needs to start behaving and looking after themselves. NZ is a small isolated country and it manages to be self sufficient. Same with Iceland and a lot of other small countries. I think it's time for the others to get their act together. Or time for someone else to play babysitter. But nobody else is going to take on that role of course.
Hey EzraS here is a question for you. If your an oppressed minority say a Tutsi in Rwanda is it your fault that your own government hates you?
Its weird because you seem to be implying that a country is responsible for their own problems but if you are an oppressed minority thing is they are not.
I think there's a difference between helping and babysitting. You are continually mentioning 2 or 3 places out of certain period of time involving extreme circumstances. If it was limited to just a couple of countries experiencing a genocide situation back in the 90's this wouldn't be an issue.
It's like anyone talking about the US not being so involved in world wide affairs these days anymore, that somehow has an impact on what took place 25 years ago in two places.
Yes, like I already said, the US along with the UK and Western Europe should help in times of a genocide, or a massive tsunami, or a massive earth quake. But the US shouldn't be expected to babysit other places and be the only source of help or refuge. Other capable countries should step in and incapable countries should get their act together - it's like there's not supposed to be any responsibility on their part.
I'm not talking about the civilian population of other countries getting their act together, I'm talking about those who run those countries getting their act together and taking responsibility, instead of it being the idea that the United States is supposed to do it for them. And I mean all of them all of the time... these days.
I agree it is frustrating that an evil government will willingly massacre much of its population. But they do not care and we cannot rely on them at all to change their policies. The only action that can be done to stop genocide is foreign intervention, if we do not do that than these atrocities will continue and continue.
I don't think we have anything we are disagreeing on.
Not really no. It's just when I'm talking about the United States taking a break from getting involved with other countries, I mean everything it's involvolved with at the time being. Which is a lot. America first for a while.
29 Mar 2017, 2:17 am
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The Rust Belt existed since the 80s and earlier. Even if your struggling in the Rust Belt you are not living in a third world country, the government can afford to provide for you. Your family is not part of a mission to be wiped out. That is a real reality in the case of genocide, someone is trying to destroy you and your family. It seems to me you seem to advocating that the people who have more should be helped at the expense of those who stand to lose everything.
Okay, well if another Kosovo genocide type incident takes place like the one in 1998, then sure the US along with the UK and Western Europe, should probably step in.
But there's been many many many other situations the United States has involved itself in playing babysitter. To the point where the US is expected to fix every single problem and continue to take in swarms of people. It's not going to help anyone if the US ends up collapsing under all that weight.
The rest of the world needs to start behaving and looking after themselves. NZ is a small isolated country and it manages to be self sufficient. Same with Iceland and a lot of other small countries. I think it's time for the others to get their act together. Or time for someone else to play babysitter. But nobody else is going to take on that role of course.
Hey EzraS here is a question for you. If your an oppressed minority say a Tutsi in Rwanda is it your fault that your own government hates you?
Its weird because you seem to be implying that a country is responsible for their own problems but if you are an oppressed minority thing is they are not.
I think there's a difference between helping and babysitting. You are continually mentioning 2 or 3 places out of certain period of time involving extreme circumstances. If it was limited to just a couple of countries experiencing a genocide situation back in the 90's this wouldn't be an issue.
It's like anyone talking about the US not being so involved in world wide affairs these days anymore, that somehow has an impact on what took place 25 years ago in two places.
Yes, like I already said, the US along with the UK and Western Europe should help in times of a genocide, or a massive tsunami, or a massive earth quake. But the US shouldn't be expected to babysit other places and be the only source of help or refuge. Other capable countries should step in and incapable countries should get their act together - it's like there's not supposed to be any responsibility on their part.
I'm not talking about the civilian population of other countries getting their act together, I'm talking about those who run those countries getting their act together and taking responsibility, instead of it being the idea that the United States is supposed to do it for them. And I mean all of them all of the time... these days.
I agree it is frustrating that an evil government will willingly massacre much of its population. But they do not care and we cannot rely on them at all to change their policies. The only action that can be done to stop genocide is foreign intervention, if we do not do that than these atrocities will continue and continue.
I don't think we have anything we are disagreeing on.
Not really no. It's just when I'm talking about the United States taking a break from getting involved with other countries, I mean everything it's involvolved with at the time being. Which is a lot. America first for a while.
No, your wrong. We can't rely on Europe to intervene. The USA is the strongest country in the world and has the capacity to do so.
29 Mar 2017, 2:30 am
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The Rust Belt existed since the 80s and earlier. Even if your struggling in the Rust Belt you are not living in a third world country, the government can afford to provide for you. Your family is not part of a mission to be wiped out. That is a real reality in the case of genocide, someone is trying to destroy you and your family. It seems to me you seem to advocating that the people who have more should be helped at the expense of those who stand to lose everything.
Okay, well if another Kosovo genocide type incident takes place like the one in 1998, then sure the US along with the UK and Western Europe, should probably step in.
But there's been many many many other situations the United States has involved itself in playing babysitter. To the point where the US is expected to fix every single problem and continue to take in swarms of people. It's not going to help anyone if the US ends up collapsing under all that weight.
The rest of the world needs to start behaving and looking after themselves. NZ is a small isolated country and it manages to be self sufficient. Same with Iceland and a lot of other small countries. I think it's time for the others to get their act together. Or time for someone else to play babysitter. But nobody else is going to take on that role of course.
Hey EzraS here is a question for you. If your an oppressed minority say a Tutsi in Rwanda is it your fault that your own government hates you?
Its weird because you seem to be implying that a country is responsible for their own problems but if you are an oppressed minority thing is they are not.
I think there's a difference between helping and babysitting. You are continually mentioning 2 or 3 places out of certain period of time involving extreme circumstances. If it was limited to just a couple of countries experiencing a genocide situation back in the 90's this wouldn't be an issue.
It's like anyone talking about the US not being so involved in world wide affairs these days anymore, that somehow has an impact on what took place 25 years ago in two places.
Yes, like I already said, the US along with the UK and Western Europe should help in times of a genocide, or a massive tsunami, or a massive earth quake. But the US shouldn't be expected to babysit other places and be the only source of help or refuge. Other capable countries should step in and incapable countries should get their act together - it's like there's not supposed to be any responsibility on their part.
I'm not talking about the civilian population of other countries getting their act together, I'm talking about those who run those countries getting their act together and taking responsibility, instead of it being the idea that the United States is supposed to do it for them. And I mean all of them all of the time... these days.
I agree it is frustrating that an evil government will willingly massacre much of its population. But they do not care and we cannot rely on them at all to change their policies. The only action that can be done to stop genocide is foreign intervention, if we do not do that than these atrocities will continue and continue.
I don't think we have anything we are disagreeing on.
Not really no. It's just when I'm talking about the United States taking a break from getting involved with other countries, I mean everything it's involvolved with at the time being. Which is a lot. America first for a while.
No, your wrong. We can't rely on Europe to intervene. The USA is the strongest country in the world and has the capacity to do so.
I think it's more like Europe and the rest of the world has just become spoiled and lazy expecting America to do everything instead of them.
29 Mar 2017, 2:49 am
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The Rust Belt existed since the 80s and earlier. Even if your struggling in the Rust Belt you are not living in a third world country, the government can afford to provide for you. Your family is not part of a mission to be wiped out. That is a real reality in the case of genocide, someone is trying to destroy you and your family. It seems to me you seem to advocating that the people who have more should be helped at the expense of those who stand to lose everything.
Okay, well if another Kosovo genocide type incident takes place like the one in 1998, then sure the US along with the UK and Western Europe, should probably step in.
But there's been many many many other situations the United States has involved itself in playing babysitter. To the point where the US is expected to fix every single problem and continue to take in swarms of people. It's not going to help anyone if the US ends up collapsing under all that weight.
The rest of the world needs to start behaving and looking after themselves. NZ is a small isolated country and it manages to be self sufficient. Same with Iceland and a lot of other small countries. I think it's time for the others to get their act together. Or time for someone else to play babysitter. But nobody else is going to take on that role of course.
Hey EzraS here is a question for you. If your an oppressed minority say a Tutsi in Rwanda is it your fault that your own government hates you?
Its weird because you seem to be implying that a country is responsible for their own problems but if you are an oppressed minority thing is they are not.
I think there's a difference between helping and babysitting. You are continually mentioning 2 or 3 places out of certain period of time involving extreme circumstances. If it was limited to just a couple of countries experiencing a genocide situation back in the 90's this wouldn't be an issue.
It's like anyone talking about the US not being so involved in world wide affairs these days anymore, that somehow has an impact on what took place 25 years ago in two places.
Yes, like I already said, the US along with the UK and Western Europe should help in times of a genocide, or a massive tsunami, or a massive earth quake. But the US shouldn't be expected to babysit other places and be the only source of help or refuge. Other capable countries should step in and incapable countries should get their act together - it's like there's not supposed to be any responsibility on their part.
I'm not talking about the civilian population of other countries getting their act together, I'm talking about those who run those countries getting their act together and taking responsibility, instead of it being the idea that the United States is supposed to do it for them. And I mean all of them all of the time... these days.
I agree it is frustrating that an evil government will willingly massacre much of its population. But they do not care and we cannot rely on them at all to change their policies. The only action that can be done to stop genocide is foreign intervention, if we do not do that than these atrocities will continue and continue.
I don't think we have anything we are disagreeing on.
Not really no. It's just when I'm talking about the United States taking a break from getting involved with other countries, I mean everything it's involvolved with at the time being. Which is a lot. America first for a while.
No, your wrong. We can't rely on Europe to intervene. The USA is the strongest country in the world and has the capacity to do so.
I think it's more like Europe and the rest of the world has just become spoiled and lazy expecting America to do everything instead of them.
That's a big generalization. French peacekeepers did allot of good in Rwanda. And countries like France have probably done more than the US in countries like Syria.
29 Mar 2017, 3:59 am
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The Rust Belt existed since the 80s and earlier. Even if your struggling in the Rust Belt you are not living in a third world country, the government can afford to provide for you. Your family is not part of a mission to be wiped out. That is a real reality in the case of genocide, someone is trying to destroy you and your family. It seems to me you seem to advocating that the people who have more should be helped at the expense of those who stand to lose everything.
Okay, well if another Kosovo genocide type incident takes place like the one in 1998, then sure the US along with the UK and Western Europe, should probably step in.
But there's been many many many other situations the United States has involved itself in playing babysitter. To the point where the US is expected to fix every single problem and continue to take in swarms of people. It's not going to help anyone if the US ends up collapsing under all that weight.
The rest of the world needs to start behaving and looking after themselves. NZ is a small isolated country and it manages to be self sufficient. Same with Iceland and a lot of other small countries. I think it's time for the others to get their act together. Or time for someone else to play babysitter. But nobody else is going to take on that role of course.
Hey EzraS here is a question for you. If your an oppressed minority say a Tutsi in Rwanda is it your fault that your own government hates you?
Its weird because you seem to be implying that a country is responsible for their own problems but if you are an oppressed minority thing is they are not.
I think there's a difference between helping and babysitting. You are continually mentioning 2 or 3 places out of certain period of time involving extreme circumstances. If it was limited to just a couple of countries experiencing a genocide situation back in the 90's this wouldn't be an issue.
It's like anyone talking about the US not being so involved in world wide affairs these days anymore, that somehow has an impact on what took place 25 years ago in two places.
Yes, like I already said, the US along with the UK and Western Europe should help in times of a genocide, or a massive tsunami, or a massive earth quake. But the US shouldn't be expected to babysit other places and be the only source of help or refuge. Other capable countries should step in and incapable countries should get their act together - it's like there's not supposed to be any responsibility on their part.
I'm not talking about the civilian population of other countries getting their act together, I'm talking about those who run those countries getting their act together and taking responsibility, instead of it being the idea that the United States is supposed to do it for them. And I mean all of them all of the time... these days.
I agree it is frustrating that an evil government will willingly massacre much of its population. But they do not care and we cannot rely on them at all to change their policies. The only action that can be done to stop genocide is foreign intervention, if we do not do that than these atrocities will continue and continue.
I don't think we have anything we are disagreeing on.
Not really no. It's just when I'm talking about the United States taking a break from getting involved with other countries, I mean everything it's involvolved with at the time being. Which is a lot. America first for a while.
No, your wrong. We can't rely on Europe to intervene. The USA is the strongest country in the world and has the capacity to do so.
I think it's more like Europe and the rest of the world has just become spoiled and lazy expecting America to do everything instead of them.
That's a big generalization. French peacekeepers did allot of good in Rwanda. And countries like France have probably done more than the US in countries like Syria.
You seem to be stuck in 1998 Rwanda, rather than current events. So I'll leave it at that.
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
29 Mar 2017, 7:25 am
Quote:
“This is not a recommendation I make lightly, as the chairman and I have worked together well for several years,” Schiff said in a statement. “But in much the same way that the attorney general was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after failing to inform the Senate of his meetings with Russian officials, I believe the public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman.”
...
In the meantime, however, the acrimony seems to have brought the investigation to a halt. On Friday, Nunes suddenly announced he was canceling a hearing scheduled for Tuesday with former top Obama administration officials, one of many steps that angered Schiff.
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover fired by the Trump administration for saying the Justice Department would not defend the president’s Muslim travel ban, was one of the witnesses scheduled to testify. The Washington Post reports now that the White House sought to block Yates’s testimony on grounds of executive privilege. Yates’s lawyer argued Friday she was not covered and said she intended to appear. That day, Nunes announced he was canceling the hearing. Now all meetings this week have been canceled because of the partisan battle.
...
In the meantime, however, the acrimony seems to have brought the investigation to a halt. On Friday, Nunes suddenly announced he was canceling a hearing scheduled for Tuesday with former top Obama administration officials, one of many steps that angered Schiff.
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover fired by the Trump administration for saying the Justice Department would not defend the president’s Muslim travel ban, was one of the witnesses scheduled to testify. The Washington Post reports now that the White House sought to block Yates’s testimony on grounds of executive privilege. Yates’s lawyer argued Friday she was not covered and said she intended to appear. That day, Nunes announced he was canceling the hearing. Now all meetings this week have been canceled because of the partisan battle.
The Atlantic: How Long Can Devin Nunes Hang On? Democrats want the chair of the committee looking into collusion between the Trump administration and Russia to recuse himself, and hearings have ground to a halt for the moment.
Meanwhile Jared Kushner has admitted that he met with a blacklisted Russian banker during the time when Obama put sanctions on the Russians.
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
29 Mar 2017, 7:51 am
New Yorker: How the White House and Republicans Blew Up the House Russia Investigation
Quote:
The evidence is now clear that the White House and Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, have worked together to halt what was previously billed as a sweeping investigation of Russian interference in last year’s election. “We’ve been frozen,” Jim Himes, a Democratic representative from Connecticut who is a member of the Committee, said.
...
The freeze started after last Monday’s hearing, where James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, revealed that the F.B.I. has been investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July. Comey also said that there was no evidence to support Trump’s tweets about being wiretapped.
...
The freeze started after last Monday’s hearing, where James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, revealed that the F.B.I. has been investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July. Comey also said that there was no evidence to support Trump’s tweets about being wiretapped.
So Comey has testified that the F.B.I. has been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July.
And now the committee has been cancelled, meeting by meeting.
Comey and Yates have information that Trump does not want known. So instead we get this distraction of the wiretapping predecessor and the evil of unmasking.
29 Mar 2017, 9:11 am
androbot01 wrote:
New Yorker: How the White House and Republicans Blew Up the House Russia Investigation
So Comey has testified that the F.B.I. has been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July.
And now the committee has been cancelled, meeting by meeting.
Comey and Yates have information that Trump does not want known. So instead we get this distraction of the wiretapping predecessor and the evil of unmasking.
Quote:
The evidence is now clear that the White House and Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, have worked together to halt what was previously billed as a sweeping investigation of Russian interference in last year’s election. “We’ve been frozen,” Jim Himes, a Democratic representative from Connecticut who is a member of the Committee, said.
...
The freeze started after last Monday’s hearing, where James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, revealed that the F.B.I. has been investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July. Comey also said that there was no evidence to support Trump’s tweets about being wiretapped.
...
The freeze started after last Monday’s hearing, where James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, revealed that the F.B.I. has been investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July. Comey also said that there was no evidence to support Trump’s tweets about being wiretapped.
So Comey has testified that the F.B.I. has been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July.
And now the committee has been cancelled, meeting by meeting.
Comey and Yates have information that Trump does not want known. So instead we get this distraction of the wiretapping predecessor and the evil of unmasking.
Wish away, if there was anything at all it would be known and probably would of been leaked before the election. There is no association between Trump and Russia at this point that would bother me, it's a false narrative based on Cold War xenophobia from the geriatrics and incredible butthurt that is preventing Democrats from even trying critical thinking.
Obama and his administration broke the law, it's worse than Watergate and has permanently damaged our democracy. These people belong in prison no doubt, straight up traitors.
29 Mar 2017, 10:45 am
Jacoby wrote:
Wish away, if there was anything at all it would be known and probably would of been leaked before the election. There is no association between Trump and Russia at this point that would bother me, it's a false narrative based on Cold War xenophobia from the geriatrics and incredible butthurt that is preventing Democrats from even trying critical thinking.
Obama and his administration broke the law, it's worse than Watergate and has permanently damaged our democracy. These people belong in prison no doubt, straight up traitors.
Obama and his administration broke the law, it's worse than Watergate and has permanently damaged our democracy. These people belong in prison no doubt, straight up traitors.
There's absolutely nothing there. No Putin helping Trump. No Trump (or his staff) in collusion with Russia. No Putin blackmail of Trump (including secret videos of prostitutes urinating on Trump). Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Just a bunch of silly ridiculous nonsense, in a long string of silly Democrat leftist liberal nonsense.
29 Mar 2017, 1:48 pm
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The Rust Belt existed since the 80s and earlier. Even if your struggling in the Rust Belt you are not living in a third world country, the government can afford to provide for you. Your family is not part of a mission to be wiped out. That is a real reality in the case of genocide, someone is trying to destroy you and your family. It seems to me you seem to advocating that the people who have more should be helped at the expense of those who stand to lose everything.
Okay, well if another Kosovo genocide type incident takes place like the one in 1998, then sure the US along with the UK and Western Europe, should probably step in.
But there's been many many many other situations the United States has involved itself in playing babysitter. To the point where the US is expected to fix every single problem and continue to take in swarms of people. It's not going to help anyone if the US ends up collapsing under all that weight.
The rest of the world needs to start behaving and looking after themselves. NZ is a small isolated country and it manages to be self sufficient. Same with Iceland and a lot of other small countries. I think it's time for the others to get their act together. Or time for someone else to play babysitter. But nobody else is going to take on that role of course.
Hey EzraS here is a question for you. If your an oppressed minority say a Tutsi in Rwanda is it your fault that your own government hates you?
Its weird because you seem to be implying that a country is responsible for their own problems but if you are an oppressed minority thing is they are not.
I think there's a difference between helping and babysitting. You are continually mentioning 2 or 3 places out of certain period of time involving extreme circumstances. If it was limited to just a couple of countries experiencing a genocide situation back in the 90's this wouldn't be an issue.
It's like anyone talking about the US not being so involved in world wide affairs these days anymore, that somehow has an impact on what took place 25 years ago in two places.
Yes, like I already said, the US along with the UK and Western Europe should help in times of a genocide, or a massive tsunami, or a massive earth quake. But the US shouldn't be expected to babysit other places and be the only source of help or refuge. Other capable countries should step in and incapable countries should get their act together - it's like there's not supposed to be any responsibility on their part.
I'm not talking about the civilian population of other countries getting their act together, I'm talking about those who run those countries getting their act together and taking responsibility, instead of it being the idea that the United States is supposed to do it for them. And I mean all of them all of the time... these days.
I agree it is frustrating that an evil government will willingly massacre much of its population. But they do not care and we cannot rely on them at all to change their policies. The only action that can be done to stop genocide is foreign intervention, if we do not do that than these atrocities will continue and continue.
I don't think we have anything we are disagreeing on.
Not really no. It's just when I'm talking about the United States taking a break from getting involved with other countries, I mean everything it's involvolved with at the time being. Which is a lot. America first for a while.
No, your wrong. We can't rely on Europe to intervene. The USA is the strongest country in the world and has the capacity to do so.
I think it's more like Europe and the rest of the world has just become spoiled and lazy expecting America to do everything instead of them.
That's a big generalization. French peacekeepers did allot of good in Rwanda. And countries like France have probably done more than the US in countries like Syria.
You seem to be stuck in 1998 Rwanda, rather than current events. So I'll leave it at that.
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
30 Mar 2017, 2:32 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The Rust Belt existed since the 80s and earlier. Even if your struggling in the Rust Belt you are not living in a third world country, the government can afford to provide for you. Your family is not part of a mission to be wiped out. That is a real reality in the case of genocide, someone is trying to destroy you and your family. It seems to me you seem to advocating that the people who have more should be helped at the expense of those who stand to lose everything.
Okay, well if another Kosovo genocide type incident takes place like the one in 1998, then sure the US along with the UK and Western Europe, should probably step in.
But there's been many many many other situations the United States has involved itself in playing babysitter. To the point where the US is expected to fix every single problem and continue to take in swarms of people. It's not going to help anyone if the US ends up collapsing under all that weight.
The rest of the world needs to start behaving and looking after themselves. NZ is a small isolated country and it manages to be self sufficient. Same with Iceland and a lot of other small countries. I think it's time for the others to get their act together. Or time for someone else to play babysitter. But nobody else is going to take on that role of course.
Hey EzraS here is a question for you. If your an oppressed minority say a Tutsi in Rwanda is it your fault that your own government hates you?
Its weird because you seem to be implying that a country is responsible for their own problems but if you are an oppressed minority thing is they are not.
I think there's a difference between helping and babysitting. You are continually mentioning 2 or 3 places out of certain period of time involving extreme circumstances. If it was limited to just a couple of countries experiencing a genocide situation back in the 90's this wouldn't be an issue.
It's like anyone talking about the US not being so involved in world wide affairs these days anymore, that somehow has an impact on what took place 25 years ago in two places.
Yes, like I already said, the US along with the UK and Western Europe should help in times of a genocide, or a massive tsunami, or a massive earth quake. But the US shouldn't be expected to babysit other places and be the only source of help or refuge. Other capable countries should step in and incapable countries should get their act together - it's like there's not supposed to be any responsibility on their part.
I'm not talking about the civilian population of other countries getting their act together, I'm talking about those who run those countries getting their act together and taking responsibility, instead of it being the idea that the United States is supposed to do it for them. And I mean all of them all of the time... these days.
I agree it is frustrating that an evil government will willingly massacre much of its population. But they do not care and we cannot rely on them at all to change their policies. The only action that can be done to stop genocide is foreign intervention, if we do not do that than these atrocities will continue and continue.
I don't think we have anything we are disagreeing on.
Not really no. It's just when I'm talking about the United States taking a break from getting involved with other countries, I mean everything it's involvolved with at the time being. Which is a lot. America first for a while.
No, your wrong. We can't rely on Europe to intervene. The USA is the strongest country in the world and has the capacity to do so.
I think it's more like Europe and the rest of the world has just become spoiled and lazy expecting America to do everything instead of them.
That's a big generalization. French peacekeepers did allot of good in Rwanda. And countries like France have probably done more than the US in countries like Syria.
You seem to be stuck in 1998 Rwanda, rather than current events. So I'll leave it at that.
What I said was supposed to be a big generalization. If France has done a lot in Syria, Even more than the US, that's great. It shows that America doesn't have to be the only country that gets involved or the only country that can help out. Now lets see the rest of world start doing as much as France. And not just in Syria.
