President Obama's speech to the UN today

[Clip-Clop]

Good speech, as always. Nice tribute to Stevens.

"Now let me be clear, just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad."

This one says he needs to bone up on his US history though...

[dellinger63]

So what I got from the speech is freedom, self-determination, and assembling without fear have all been achieved in the mid-east, specifically Egypt and Libya, it’s just the way ‘they’ interpret freedom, self-determination, and assembling without fear and we accept that.

He did speak of the need for women’s rights, at least to an education, but left out any specific countries to blame as it being almost too abstract to do so. After all if those countries interpret freedom and self-determination as dominating their women we apparantly accept that.

This circus of an administration can’t even acknowledge the facts surrounding the murders of Americans on American soil choosing instead to chastise CNN for releasing journal facts before releasing it to his parents (Chris Stevens fears of an al qaida price on his head and the lack of security at the embassy) when in fact CNN DID contact the parents first and recovered a piece of evidence from the first American terrorist attack since 9-11 on American soil, four days after the attack. This president is unable to run small embassy much less a country.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Good speech, as always. Nice tribute to Stevens.

"Now let me be clear, just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad."

This one says he needs to bone up on his US history though...

And probably wouldn't hurt to him to look up what he is spending trillions of dollars for either. Cause unless the speech writer's have confused things, this was exactly the reason (or at least their excuse) for our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, (Iran - you're next!), and most likely, Syria.

[Riot]

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That's America in a nutshell.

Kudos to the internet, google, facebook, twitter - the Arab Spring could not have happened without them. Amazing.

[Danzig]

[quote=Clip-Clop;892239]Good speech, as always. Nice tribute to Stevens.

"Now let me be clear, just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad."

This one says he needs to bone up on his US history though...[/QUOTE]

welllllll..kind of a grey area there.
we try to dictate fair elections, but i don't know that we've tried to dictate the outcome-that wouldn't exactly be fair.
egypt is an example. we wanted them to have free and fair elections-but i doubt the state dept wanted to see the muslim br'hood get a majority. in that regard, we don't dictate.

[Clip-Clop]

[quote=Danzig;892268]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Good speech, as always. Nice tribute to Stevens.

"Now let me be clear, just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad."

This one says he needs to bone up on his US history though...[/QUOTE]

welllllll..kind of a grey area there.
we try to dictate fair elections, but i don't know that we've tried to dictate the outcome-that wouldn't exactly be fair.
egypt is an example. we wanted them to have free and fair elections-but i doubt the state dept wanted to see the muslim br'hood get a majority. in that regard, we don't dictate.

At least Panama and Vietnam at a bare minimum, there are many more.

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/wo...ical.html?_r=0


amazing.
we pay trillions, 1/5th-1/4th of the feds annual budget goes to defense, to protect us against countries like china.


quick, who here knew china had exactly ZERO air craft carriers??? now, they have one. it's a training vessel, and they don't even have carrier landing capability!!!
unreal.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/wo...ical.html?_r=0


amazing.
we pay trillions, 1/5th-1/4th of the feds annual budget goes to defense, to protect us against countries like china.


quick, who here knew china had exactly ZERO air craft carriers??? now, they have one. it's a training vessel, and they don't even have carrier landing capability!!!
unreal.

Ignoring China's military buildup is not a wise idea. The idea that China building aircraft carriers shouldnt be something that we are concerned about is pure folly. We have countless threads about stimulus and how great spending money is yet when talking about cutting defense US jobs are lost. If we are going to needlessly spend money to stimulate the economy I'd rather it be on the military than wind farms or something else that will ultimately cost us money anyway.

Remember that much of the money that is used by the Chinese to build up their military comes directly from us.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Ignoring China's military buildup is not a wise idea. The idea that China building aircraft carriers shouldnt be something that we are concerned about is pure folly. We have countless threads about stimulus and how great spending money is yet when talking about cutting defense US jobs are lost. If we are going to needlessly spend money to stimulate the economy I'd rather it be on the military than wind farms or something else that will ultimately cost us money anyway.

Remember that much of the money that is used by the Chinese to build up their military comes directly from us.

yeah, but it's not much of a buildup if they don't even have one working carrier.
do you know how long it will take them to get even close to our military? and what about our allies?
i'd imagine that most of the worlds military belongs to us, england and france.
and yes, i know that it would cut jobs. but i also know how much we spend on defense, and it's obscene.

[Danzig]

here, check this out on military spending. it's an eye opener-or should be.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, but it's not much of a buildup if they don't even have one working carrier.
do you know how long it will take them to get even close to our military? and what about our allies?
i'd imagine that most of the worlds military belongs to us, england and france.
and yes, i know that it would cut jobs. but i also know how much we spend on defense, and it's obscene.

What do we really know about China? Pretty much nothing.
The worlds second largest military is Russia.
The Chinese are 3rd.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...tes-of-America

This isnt something that we want to be wrong about. It isnt as though the Chinese are about to attack us but what if they decide that Taiwan needs to come back to the motherland? What if they decide they are still pissed at Japan about WW2? I'm sure their buildup isnt only looking in our direction. Their neighbors to the north arent exactly shrinking violets.

[Cannon Shell]

I think the scary part about that article is the idea that it will take the Chinese a long time to develop planes that have the technology to land on carriers. Why couldnt the just buy the technology from the Ukraine who they bought the Carrier from or some other country with carriers?

I'm supposed to believe that the Chinese have developed nuclear weapons but cant figure out how to land planes on ships which is something that has been done for 75 years?

That entire article smells like propaganda and considering the source not surprising.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think the scary part about that article is the idea that it will take the Chinese a long time to develop planes that have the technology to land on carriers. Why couldnt the just buy the technology from the Ukraine who they bought the Carrier from or some other country with carriers?

I'm supposed to believe that the Chinese have developed nuclear weapons but cant figure out how to land planes on ships which is something that has been done for 75 years?

That entire article smells like propaganda and considering the source not surprising.

carrier landings are a dicey proposition. our guys make it look easy. many other countries still don't have the capability to fight at night. what we take for granted, others take as sci fi.

there are 21 carriers extent. we have 11 of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

[Danzig]

[quote=Clip-Clop;892278]

Originally Posted by Danzig

At least Panama and Vietnam at a bare minimum, there are many more.

vietnam was our half-assed effort to keep communism from spreading. damn french got us involved in that one too. i think after saving their asses in two world wars and then trying to help them out in that godforsaken colony has us paid up for the american revolution!

[Clip-Clop]

[quote=Danzig;892292]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

vietnam was our half-assed effort to keep communism from spreading. damn french got us involved in that one too. i think after saving their asses in two world wars and then trying to help them out in that godforsaken colony has us paid up for the american revolution!

I was just talking about rigging elections overseas to get what we wanted.

[Danzig]

[quote=Clip-Clop;892320]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I was just talking about rigging elections overseas to get what we wanted.

what? rigging?! never.....