Posts by Richard Wilson4

Jeremy Harris21 said:Go ahead, the floor is yours.

Look, ignoring the fact that Iraq was basically a one-party dictatorship where 60% were Shia and 205 Kurds had zero rights.
In that country, you had a tiny 20% Arab minority running everything. Honestly, it’s pretty creepy if you think about it.

brightjackal7 said:Like every other pro-American person in this forum, you have a poorly constructed defense—that single bullet of "you all just did it for the oil" that you always fire off first.

Fine. America didn't intervene in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya for oil. Let’s completely discard that "amateur" thesis.

Let’s instead take the statements of their own presidents before they sent their young men into those countries.

March 19, 2011 - Barack Obama: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

March 19, 2003 - George W. Bush: American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the w...orld from grave danger.

We see that Americans are consistent with their reasoning and, honestly, they never mention oil. How foolish and naive we must be for thinking otherwise.

But let's analyze these very similar statements. They launch into action to respond to the cries of people whose lives and freedoms are under threat.

I am choosing you, General, to answer me:

- what freedoms does the people of Iraq actually have today?
- what freedoms does the people of Afghanistan actually have today?
- what freedoms do you think the people of Libya will have by this time next year?

And as bonus questions:

- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Yemen (where the regime is responsible for about 50 deaths in the last week, including several foreigners)?
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Syria (where the regime is responsible for about 10 protesters killed in the last few days)?
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Bahrain (where the Saudi army is entering the country, and there is even footage on YouTube of a protester being shot in the middle of the street)?

And finally, a super-bonus question:
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies of the cartels in Mexico, right on the doorstep of their land full of freedom and democracy? Why isn't it unsettling to think that south of the border, 30,000 people (yes, thirty thousand) have been killed in the last five years?

Why was Libya the first choice for peace and democracy, and do you truly believe they will extend their democratic actions to the aforementioned countries anytime soon, especially considering reports that CIA operatives have been maneuvering in Yemen in recent days?

Once you answer that, take a look at the actual results these democratic methods have yielded globally. If you can't remember, I'll remind you again: Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two are sufficient examples. Honestly, I don't expect any coherent response.

You mind if I take a crack at answering this?

What exactly does "International Community" even mean?

France was against Iraq but totally fine with Libya, while Germany is all over Afghanistan but won't touch Libya.

Nothing lasts forever.

Karen Smith9 said:It's actually a reimagining of an old film by Chris Marker.

WTF?!
What's the title?

mistyotter35 said:In my estimation, the concept of an "original film" refers to a work that serves as a pioneer within some specific dimension—be it through its narrative structure, its method of storytelling, its cinematography, or its visual presentation. To me, such films include:

-2001: A Space Odyssey
-Star Wars: A New Hope
-Matrix
-Inglourious Basterds
-Fight Club
-Seven
-12 Monkeys
-Sixth Sense
-Memento
-Inception...

12 Monkeys is definitely something special 👍

Jeremy Harris21 said:Isn't the real crisis actually coming from the South, especially when you consider how much influence Hezbollah wields there?

The South used to be this mix of Christians and Shiites.
Now most of the Christians have been forced out, and Hezbollah is just using that whole area to launch attacks on Israel.

Which ones actually work, and which ones were based on books but still missed the mark?
Personally, I'd throw Borac Club in there.

Take the original Star Wars (1977), for example. It’s basically just a mashup of Westerns, samurai flicks, and Sci-Fi.

Linda Howard4 said:Well, they certainly picked a hell of a partner to align with—the Sunnis, I assume.

Christians make up about 30% of the population but still hold 50% of the seats in Congress. They definitely hold their own in their neck of the woods.

Daniel Garcia24 said:I hear you... but it all feels incredibly precarious, especially when you consider how an Islamic mindset tends to prioritize religious conviction above everything else.

But having their backs is a bigger reason for the alliance than anything else.

Sunni are terrified of the Shia, and honestly, they have every reason to be.

Daniel Garcia24 said:I think you're significantly underestimating how much weight Christians still carry in Lebanon. They hold 60 of the 120 seats in Parliament. Sure, things aren't quite what they were back in the early nineties, but they still maintain a massive amount of leverage within the country, especially when you consider how the ongoing friction between Sunnis and Shiites plays into their hands.

The Sunnis and Christians are basically allies in Lebanon.

Lebanon needs to be split up. Let's turn Mount Rainier into a Christian state and let the rest of them—Sunnis, Shiites, Druze—fight it out amongst themselves. Honestly, I don't care.

Jamie Nelson10 said:Keaton, Kilmer, Travolta—they’ve been churning out straight garbage lately...

I mean, look, those guys have "has-been" practically tattooed on their foreheads by now.
What actually blew my mind was seeing other names pop up—actors who were headlining major Hollywood blockbusters just a few years ago.

I was gonna mention Morgan Freeman being in that super cheap horror flick set in San Francisco, but I totally blanked on the title now.

When I saw on the news ticker that you had Hugh Laurie, Keanu Reeves, and Forest Whitaker all in one movie, I honestly thought I was looking at a certified masterpiece.
Then it hit me—wait, why haven't I heard anything about this hitting theaters?

I'm watching it now and look, it’s not a total disaster, but let's be real: it’s pretty mid. It definitely isn't some high-budget blockbuster or a powerhouse performance.

It feels like I'm seeing this more and more lately—big-name actors who used to carry massive A-list movies are now just doing stuff that skips the big screen entirely, going straight to streaming or even just becoming those random TV movies.🤷

nimblemarlin6 said:"We have America," someone said. Okay, fine—but what are we actually supposed to do now that we have it? The real question isn't just about the fact that we exist as a nation, but rather what kind of nation we are and what we plan to do with it once we're standing here.
Some people seem to think that simply "having a country" is enough—as if we can just plant ourselves on the soil and sing some old-fashioned patriotic anthems from the frontier days and call it a day.
Honestly, wanting a state just for the sake of having one is pretty pointless. It’s the quality of the state that matters, not just its existence.

Look at how much Ireland changed from the 1930s to 2005.
And even now, while they're dealing with their own mess, you don't see them crying about the British Monarchy, do you?
Hell no.

Jack Johnson6 said:True, money isn't everything. But if you have economic stability paired with actual freedom—like protecting your own language and school systems—why go to war? Why fight over a seat at the UN?

What’s the price tag on that?

It’s hard to gauge exactly how satisfied the Basques are, but there isn't a desperate drive for independence at any cost. Very few people seem willing to pick up arms, much like the situation with the Catalans.

Is that just a lack of nerve?

The IRA's actions left 900 people dead, yet these guys are out here risking their lives and prison time.

William Wright7 said:It’s honestly embarrassing that you guys call yourselves rationalists. What are you even doing? Living for real life or just living for some map in an atlas?

The Germans planning that assassination attempt on Hitler could have said the exact same thing.
"What was the point of all this anyway?"
A strong economy isn't the only thing that matters for a country.

The Basques are wealthier than most Spaniards, but they aren't happy about it either.

The whole idea of an American state almost vanished, and that’s a damn shame for us as a people.

Americans didn't really emerge as a distinct nation between 1972 and 1989.

William Wright7 said:That timeframe is way too short to judge; there was plenty of America before this, too. American nationalism within America ended up costing hundreds of thousands of lives across every single group...

Why would Americans even bother complaining if they’re doing alright? What’s the point? Why would anyone go looking for trouble?

Death toll under Nazi Germany

Mexicans 350,000
Americans 250,000
Muslims 110,000
Jews 15,000

Americans killed tens of thousands of Mexicans, but by the end of the war, about ten thousand Americans were killed.
Muslims were mostly killed by Mexicans.

But somehow, American nationalism is always labeled the problem, demonized, and then wiped out after 1972.

Mexican identity easily blended into the American identity and vice versa. America was never a threat to Mexicans the way it was to Americans.

And just because things are "fine" does that mean you have to ditch the idea of having your own national state?

nimblemarlin6 said:The truth is, the US is independent today not because there was some unstoppable, desperate drive for an independent American state, but mostly because of the sheer chaos that kicked off back in 1990.
If the Mexicans hadn't been so aggressive, we probably would have just stayed part of the American confederation.

Look, I'm with you on this one.
It's a tough pill to swallow, but that's just the reality of it.

William Wright7 said:Was Mexican nationalism the only kind that existed back in the USA?

From roughly 1972 to 1989, American nationalism basically didn't exist in any books. Americans were just totally crushed, silenced, and stepped on.

Without Maddox and those Americans from the north, we wouldn't have been making any noise at all. We were just a broken people—basically just living for the moment, trying to keep our bellies full, and not giving a damn about anything else.
Those other groups weren't like that, but honestly, the sheer trauma and the defeats we took back in '45 and '71 are why we ended up this way.

Even today, after everything that happened in Warsaw and that small town in rural America, every third American would probably vote for unconditional unification with Mexico. And I don't mean as citizens of the US, I mean as Americans.
We’re a sick, exhausted people. We end up celebrating betrayal and acting like our enemies are heroes.