The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

No one but America put it in the position of "world cop", it did it for the same reason England and Spain did it, for power and wealth.

England held the "commonwealth" for centuries, a few decades is too hard for America. It's everyone else's fault you went to war.

[magi877]

but you love what it does for you, and you want it while claiming you don't.
This is funny, you fought for what you want, yet now claim you never wanted it.
LOL!!!

me , me personally? if so, what did it "do for me?"

American soldiers do not start wars, failed politicians start wars

you sound borderline delusional, can you please clarify your statements?

thanks!!

[Gatefan1976]

me , me personally? if so, what did it "do for me?"

American soldiers do not start wars, failed politicians start wars

you sound borderline delusional, can you please clarify your statements?

thanks!!

Why do you take pride in serving for delusional people?
Thanks!!

[magi877]

I want you to get out, and don't ask for our help to fix the mess you make doing it.
Thing is, you have been making a mess since WW2, and that mess is on you.
You screwed the M-E, you screwed China, and you basically screw anywhere you go.
THAT IS ON YOU.
Fix your errors, and don't claim you are doing anything good for the people you screwed.
Or is that too flipping hard?

i am posting mainly, as an individual american with a opinion, yet, you are attacking me as if I AM the American government

if you have issue with the nature of the relationship between your country and the US, then I suggest you begin a campaign. get some sigs together and petition the govt to break the alliance

You are so blinded by hate and vitriol for America you are blind to the fact that I am advocating-as a voter- for my nation to do the very things you want us to do!!

on here you are practicing the very opposite of political civil discourse. you try to shut down everyone who differs, even slightly, from your opinion instead of engaging in civil argument

i have never seen annoyed or anyone else on here (like when you attacked Sgalisa for their mention of religion) attack you r anyone else in the same method and manner as you

your behavior is the height of intolerance and completely illiberal

[magi877]

Why do you take pride in serving for delusional people?
Thanks!!

American soldiers DO NOT SERVE A PERSON-- i know, i know you wouldn't know that since Australians and others in the Commonwealth serve "the Queen"--we swear our oath to the Constitution

the pride is from the service with our fellow soldiers and in the memory of our accomplishments we achieved alongside them

[Chaka-Z0]

your behavior is the height of intolerance and completely illiberal

Nah that's just GF, he's a snappy Aussie that gives it to you raw. Question is, can you cope with it?

[Chaka-Z0]

American soldiers DO NOT SERVE A PERSON-- i know, i know you wouldn't know that since Australians and others in the Commonwealth serve "the Queen"--we swear our oath to the Constitution

the pride is from the service with our fellow soldiers and in the memory of our accomplishments we achieved alongside them

Oh god, he did not!

You are clueless my friend. Here's a tip, go back to school you failed history hard. Do some research on the US performance in WW1 and the impact of the UK "colonies" and rather, the casualties involves for non-conscripted troops. Yea that's right, Australians and Canadians side by side, which were not even conscripted, giving their lives for a fkn war on another continent and getting our collective asses out of it. What did the US do? They broke line and ensued heavy crossfire casualties on the allied because of their amateurism.

Go fk yourself you know nothing about the "colonies" if you believe anybody here ever gave a **** about the Queen pre-1900s.

[magi877]

No one but America put it in the position of "world cop", it did it for the same reason England and Spain did it, for power and wealth.

England held the "commonwealth" for centuries, a few decades is too hard for America. It's everyone else's fault you went to war.

at Yalta and other meetings, Churchill and Roosevelt allowed Stalin and the USSR their sphere of post war influence. America and England settled on theirs (and the other allies) and Churchill suborned England and France's 'interests' to America's

this never should have been

such agreements not only gave the USSR eastern europe but these agreements also gave the USSR and communist China half of Korea and Vietnam when arbitrary lines were draw at the 17th and 48 th parallels,respectively, to allow for what nation would provide and accept the surrender of Japanese troops

in korea, the USSR took the surrender north of the 48th in vietnam, the nationalist chinese took the surrender north of the 17th. the nationalist lost to the chinese communist, thereby giving them influence over northern vietnam even though French troops arrived to take control later, they still had established their influence

So, yes, America was involved in these decisions, but so were several other world "powers"

BUT WHY should the world still be operating under these 70 year old mandates?

[Gatefan1976]

American soldiers DO NOT SERVE A PERSON-- i know, i know you wouldn't know that since Australians and others in the Commonwealth serve "the Queen"--we swear our oath to the Constitution

the pride is from the service with our fellow soldiers and in the memory of our accomplishments we achieved alongside them

And you think that the constitution is different?
It's your queen, wake up man.

[magi877]

Oh god, he did not!

You are clueless my friend. Here's a tip, go back to school you failed history hard. Do some research on the US performance in WW1 and the impact of the UK "colonies" and rather, the casualties involves for non-conscripted troops. Yea that's right, Australians and Canadians side by side, which were not even conscripted, giving their lives for a fkn war on another continent and getting our collective asses out of it. What did the US do? They broke line and ensued heavy crossfire casualties on the allied because of their amateurism.

Go fk yourself you know nothing about the "colonies" if you believe anybody here ever gave a **** about the Queen pre-1900s.

what are you even talking about?

did you read my post?

all i said was that the us military takes an oath to serve - "support and defend"- the constitution, not to a person, as the British and Commonwealth militaries do

i said nothing about WW1 or any other war in this post. i certainly said nothing at all about anyone's casualties or gallantry or any other such thing

on the oaths

Australia's:
The current Oath of Office is: I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia in the office of (position) and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia. So help me God!

Canada's:I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the Canadian Forces until lawfully released, that I will resist Her Majesty's enemies and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and maintained ...

England's:
I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and ...

America's:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed

SEE A DIFFERENCE?

[Gatefan1976]

at Yalta and other meetings, Churchill and Roosevelt allowed Stalin and the USSR their sphere of post war influence. America and England settled on theirs (and the other allies) and Churchill suborned England and France's 'interests' to America's

this never should have been

such agreements not only gave the USSR eastern europe but these agreements also gave the USSR and communist China half of Korea and Vietnam when arbitrary lines were draw at the 17th and 48 th parallels,respectively, to allow for what nation would provide and accept the surrender of Japanese troops

in korea, the USSR took the surrender north of the 48th in vietnam, the nationalist chinese took the surrender north of the 17th. the nationalist lost to the chinese communist, thereby giving them influence over northern vietnam even though French troops arrived to take control later, they still had established their influence

So, yes, America was involved in these decisions, but so were several other world "powers"

BUT WHY should the world still be operating under these 70 year old mandates?

Then fight for "it should never have happened"
I disagree it the Aussie political position on refugee's, I disagree with ALOT of what we do, but I am not afraid to say it.
WE F"KD UP!!
Why are Americans so afraid of saying that?

As to your wars, you never do them alone, and Australia is the only nation to go along with you in every war or police action you declare.
Don't WE have a right of opinion, or do you just want what you can get, you know, what you are arguing you should not have to do.

[magi877]

And you think that the constitution is different?
It's your queen, wake up man.

YES

The constitution is a intersubjective ideal put to words in a document agreed upon and ratified by the constituent states of the US.

The Queen is a person, who, also via intersubjectivity, rules.

[Gatefan1976]

what are you even talking about?

did you read my post?

all i said was that the us military takes an oath to serve - "support and defend"- the constitution, not to a person, as the British and Commonwealth militaries do

i said nothing about WW1 or any other war in this post. i certainly said nothing at all about anyone's casualties or gallantry or any other such thing

on the oaths

Australia's:
The current Oath of Office is: I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia in the office of (position) and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia. So help me God!

Canada's:I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the Canadian Forces until lawfully released, that I will resist Her Majesty's enemies and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and maintained ...

England's:
I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and ...

America's:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed

SEE A DIFFERENCE?

Yes, you see yourselves as unquestioned leaders, with no responsibility to anyone but the USA.
Oh, was I supposed to see the UK, Canada and Australia giving up political authority to the queen?
Yeah, hasn't worked that way for centuries mate, I suggest you catch up.

[magi877]

Moving on....

left wing media, here MSNBC, attacks Tulsi Gabbard over her visit to Assad in her attempts to forestall US military action and further overseas follies in the mid east

since when did the liberals become so war hungry?

[Gatefan1976]

yes

the constitution is a intersubjective ideal put to words in a document agreed upon and ratified by the constituent states of the us.

The queen is a person, who, also via intersubjectivity, rules.

lol!!