earthquake Haiti was caused by tectonic weapon

[Ozymandyus]

You may call me a conspiracy theorist if I can label you as coincidence theorist's.

There are bound to be coincidences - it is literally inevitable that something in a series of events that involves many complex and complicated causes and outcomes will have coincidences. Whether it be the faces that were seen in the smoke of the buildings of 9/11 that was seen as proof that the devil was somehow involved, to the dreams my mom has that she swears play out in real life (always after the fact of course).

Your theories that we are being controlled by the TV through subliminal messages and that Osama Bin Laden is dead have direct contradicting proof, which you have to go to great lengths to deny, and have no real supporting evidence beyond the unverifiable claims of usually unnamed , often disturbed individuals that suspect evil entities lurking behind every corner.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

Apparently weed really does make you paranoid.

Hey hey hey, I resent that

 

[Niocan]

Are we not defined by our environment? Think about it, and the messages don't need to be subliminal at all.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

Niocan, you make me giggle :lol:

 

[Ozymandyus]

Are we not defined by our environment? Think about it, and the messages don't need to be subliminal at all.

Oh I have no problem if your claim is that advertising affects us, often negatively. But that is not the claim of your lunatic fringe website that you choose to quote.

 

[Niocan]

Oh I have no problem if your claim is that advertising affects us, often negatively. But that is not the claim of your lunatic fringe website that you choose to quote.

It's not just the advertising, but that's a large part of it; The entire TV experience is the greatest propaganda tool imaginable.

Niocan, you make me giggle :lol:

<3

 

[Finger]

toot toot

 

[MRaverz]

As for the fact that most of you probably think I'm some conspiracy theorist (I'm not, I'm throwing ideas around).

You'd be surprised how many conspiracy theorists say that.

The United States, at least at the moment, has the tendency to hang around in countries it's 'helping out' for far too long.

Do you have specific examples of this happening in similar situations? Specifically disaster relief situations? And I'm still waiting for a realistic reason why we would even want to occupy a third-world country. That sort of thing isn't exactly cheap, you know.

As Nashy19 said "Just give them aid, set them up and leave". Don't hang around treating untold numbers of diseases which were already there, if it matters so much now - it would have mattered before. Note on 'set them up', the three words which were missed. Give out aid, ensure they can cope for themselves, leave. If you 'help out' too much, they'll never be able to help themselves.

Again, you say that like it wasn't already the plan.

As for the comparison with Risk, alliances can be broken yet that's not the point I was raising. Take the EU as a more 'adult' example, Belgium on it's own is pretty puny - yet it's part of the EU. If Belgium were attacked, the EU would respond.

The EU wasn't created as a response to outside aggression. It was created for economic reasons. But it incidentally ends up uniting a group of very diverse countries that have a thousand-year history of violent war and mistrust. So that example actually does more to support my argument than it does yours.

Current examples of the US troops deployment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

Money isn't an issue for the US military, you should know how massive their budget is.

"I've got a good friend who's a medic in the US Army. He's been in Haiti for over a month now and he tells me that he spends most of his time there treating locals for a very wide range of illnesses (many of which weren't the result of the earthquake,) "
I think you've contradicted yourself, here you state that the troops are treating illnesses not associated with the earthquake - yet you claim that the plan was to only provide aid related to the earthquake.

The EU was created to prevent events like the World Wars from happening again, the most successful way to do this is through exclusive trade rights. It was a response to inside aggression and a desire to cool it.

 

[Finger]

Current examples of the US troops deployment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

I asked for specific examples of long-term US military presences that began as a relief operations. Do not just list all deployments and expect me to do your work for you. The more you try to avoid answering my questions, the more it's apparent that you're just trying to rationalize a conclusion you had already decided upon.

Money isn't an issue for the US military, you should know how massive their budget is.

Money is always an issue. But you still haven't given me an answer. You think that the US military has some sinister motive behind its involvement in the Haiti relief effort. What is it? What possible reason would the US military have for occupying a third-world country if not to provide relief? Do you think they just do it for fun? Are you that ignorant?

I think you've contradicted yourself, here you state that the troops are treating illnesses not associated with the earthquake - yet you claim that the plan was to only provide aid related to the earthquake.

So you're a doctor/medic/whatever, and you're set up in a little aid station in Haiti. A child gets brought in with Malaria, another with Typhoid. What do you do? "Oh sorry kids, those aren't earthquake-related illness. Now get out before I throw you out." Please.

The EU was created to prevent events like the World Wars from happening again, the most successful way to do this is through exclusive trade rights. It was a response to inside aggression and a desire to cool it.

Uhh... yeah. So we agree then. Alliances aren't only used to make war, they are used to stop it.

 

[MRaverz]

I never said that I thought they had a sinister motive... I wondered how long it would take for them to leave Haiti, then I went on to mess around with macabre possibilities.

Take a step back, I'm not some conspiracy nut - you're assuming that I think things which I don't.

you're just trying to rationalize a conclusion you had already decided upon.

Oh, sweet irony. :lol:

Uhh... yeah. So we agree then. Alliances aren't only used to make war, they are used to stop it.

Uhh... no. We don't agree, you just changed your position after I corrected you.

I'm also not dodging any questions, although I've probably ignored ridiculous claims you've made.

 

[Finger]

I never said that I thought they had a sinister motive... I wondered how long it would take for them to leave Haiti, then I went on to mess around with macabre possibilities.

You implied it and admitted so...

You seem to be implying that America has something to gain by maintaining a presence in a third-world country. What exactly would that be?

I am implying that, I'm curious as to whether the United States are being as Imperialistic as they appear to be and have been accused of being.

Uhh... no. We don't agree, you just changed your position after I corrected you.

First you said "Additionally, if you've ever placed Civilization, Risk etc - you'll know that if you want to take land, you start by making alliances. Just saying." I then contested this saying, "Creating alliances is also how you create peace and economic stability." You then brought up the EU, an alliance that creates peace and economic stability. So it is you who has changed your position.

I'm also not dodging any questions, although I've probably ignored ridiculous claims you've made.

So.. asking you to provide evidence for your assertion that the "US has a habit of staying longer than it's needed" is ridiculous? Challenging your implication that the US Military has something to gain from occupying a third-world country is ridiculous? Those are questions that you've repeatedly chosen not to answer. So yeah, you at least appear to be dodging.

But ok, let's take a step back. If all you're saying is that the US shouldn't stay in Haiti longer than is needed, then hooray! We agree. But if you're trying to imply that we will intentionally stay longer than is needed out of some hidden self-interest (as you have suggested,) then I ask for your evidence. As of yet, there is every indication that the US Army's relief effort in Haiti is good intentioned. If you think that's wrong, then prove it.

 

[MRaverz]

But ok, let's take a step back. If all you're saying is that the US shouldn't stay in Haiti longer than is needed, then hooray! We agree. But if you're trying to imply that we will intentionally stay longer than is needed out of some hidden self-interest (as you have suggested,) then I ask for your evidence. As of yet, there is every indication that the US Army's relief effort in Haiti is good intentioned. If you think that's wrong, then prove it.

All I'm saying is that I wonder if the US will hang around for too long, in a similar fashion to Iraq.

I'm not saying they will, I'm not saying they won't, but they wouldn't get accused of being Imperialistic for no reason. Let's see what happens, but when exactly would be too long in your opinion?

 

[Ozymandyus]

But ok, let's take a step back. If all you're saying is that the US shouldn't stay in Haiti longer than is needed, then hooray! We agree. But if you're trying to imply that we will intentionally stay longer than is needed out of some hidden self-interest (as you have suggested,) then I ask for your evidence. As of yet, there is every indication that the US Army's relief effort in Haiti is good intentioned. If you think that's wrong, then prove it.

All I'm saying is that I wonder if the US will hang around for too long, in a similar fashion to Iraq.

I'm not saying they will, I'm not saying they won't, but they wouldn't get accused of being Imperialistic for no reason. Let's see what happens, but when exactly would be too long in your opinion?

Too long is when you are asked to leave and refuse. You can leave before that without leaving too soon but I would certainly suggest that while your services are still being used actively and to good effect to the advantage of that countries' people that if you leave it is too soon - that would be if they left now.

 

[Finger]

All I'm saying is that I wonder if the US will hang around for too long, in a similar fashion to Iraq.

And the obvious follow-up question would be, "What makes you think we 'stayed too long' in Iraq?" But that would really derail this thread. This is why I asked you for more relevant examples. Ones where we "stayed too long" after providing disaster relief.

 

[MRaverz]

All I'm saying is that I wonder if the US will hang around for too long, in a similar fashion to Iraq.

And the obvious follow-up question would be, "What makes you think we 'stayed too long' in Iraq?" But that would really derail this thread. This is why I asked you for more relevant examples. Ones where we "stayed too long" after providing disaster relief.

Iraq has had a permanent government since 2006, in fact there have been complaints about the US interfering with it's actions. For example, on May 12, 2006 The Islamic Virtue Party withdrew from Iraqi government complaining of US interference.

Let's turn this round, how would you feel if Iraq were stepping in on US government whenever they felt like it?

If the US starts to interfere with Haitian politics, I think that they will have stayed too long.

 

[Finger]

So... you're just not going to even try to come up with a relevant example, are you? You're that content to turn this into an Iraq thread? *sigh* Fine then.

Iraq has had a permanent government since 2006, in fact there have been complaints about the US interfering with it's actions. For example, on May 12, 2006 The Islamic Virtue Party withdrew from Iraqi government complaining of US interference.

That's not quite right. The Islamic Virtue Party (or al-Fadhila) withdrew from the negotiations which set up the permanent Iraqi government. It happened in the same month the negotiations completed, so your mistake is understandable. Yes, they claimed "American interference", but what instigated their withdrawal was their non-appointment to the ministries of Oil and Trade, positions their members had held under the previous temporary government. As their party had control of the largest oil refining city, they had been suspected of embezzlement by their critics. Not saying they were guilty, but when placed in context, the al-Fadhila Party's withdrawal and complaints look more like a political hissy-fit than a legitimate concern. Especially since they never bothered to follow through on or even substantiate their claims.

But again, Haiti is not Iraq. We didn't go in to overthrow a government and install a new one, we went in to provide disaster relief. A similar relief operation that turned into an all-out occupation would help your argument and justify your concerns a lot more than trying to flimsily compare it to Iraq. If you can find one, post it.

 

[MRaverz]

So... you're just not going to even try to come up with a relevant example, are you? You're that content to turn this into an Iraq thread? *sigh* Fine then.

Iraq has had a permanent government since 2006, in fact there have been complaints about the US interfering with it's actions. For example, on May 12, 2006 The Islamic Virtue Party withdrew from Iraqi government complaining of US interference.

That's not quite right. The Islamic Virtue Party (or al-Fadhila) withdrew from the negotiations which set up the permanent Iraqi government. It happened in the same month the negotiations completed, so your mistake is understandable. Yes, they claimed "American interference", but what instigated their withdrawal was their non-appointment to the ministries of Oil and Trade, positions their members had held under the previous temporary government. As their party had control of the largest oil refining city, they had been suspected of embezzlement by their critics. Not saying they were guilty, but when placed in context, the al-Fadhila Party's withdrawal and complaints look more like a political hissy-fit than a legitimate concern. Especially since they never bothered to follow through on or even substantiate their claims.

But again, Haiti is not Iraq. We didn't go in to overthrow a government and install a new one, we went in to provide disaster relief. A similar relief operation that turned into an all-out occupation would help your argument and justify your concerns a lot more than trying to flimsily compare it to Iraq. If you can find one, post it.

Stop making striking assumptions! It's not contributing anything but misinformation, I brought up Iraq as an example don't set up strawmen like 'you just want to turn this into an Iraq thread'. Although we are derailing...

I rechecked what you said and you're right, it was during the set up. So I can't really find a decent example, although I wasn't here to claim American Imperialism - just state that there are certain things the American military does which makes it appear that they are being as such. Another example to add to the pile would be staying to Haiti for too long, and like I keep saying - I wonder if they'll end up doing that.

Personally, I feel like Iraq was something which shouldn't have happened how it did, but can see how misinformation led to it. The military should also have withdrawn ages ago. Unless that is, they are merely part of UN peacekeepers. Are they, or are some US troops merely working alongside UN troops?

 

[Finger]

Stop making striking assumptions! It's not contributing anything but misinformation, I brought up Iraq as an example don't set up strawmen like 'you just want to turn this into an Iraq thread'.

And Iraq is a bad example. I've been pointing this out since the thread began. I also cautioned that talking about Iraq would inevitably derail this thread even further, but you kept talking about it and ignored my request for a more relevant example. How does that not leave the impression that you want to talk about Iraq?

Personally, I feel like Iraq was something which shouldn't have happened how it did, but can see how misinformation led to it. The military should also have withdrawn ages ago. Unless that is, they are merely part of UN peacekeepers. Are they, or are some US troops merely working alongside UN troops?

And you apparently don't want to stop.

I rechecked what you said and you're right, it was during the set up. So I can't really find a decent example, although I wasn't here to claim American Imperialism - just state that there are certain things the American military does which makes it appear that they are being as such. Another example to add to the pile would be staying to Haiti for too long, and like I keep saying - I wonder if they'll end up doing that.

My God, you sound like Fox News. "I'm not saying [insert claim here], I'm just asking questions."

 

[MRaverz]

I rechecked what you said and you're right, it was during the set up. So I can't really find a decent example, although I wasn't here to claim American Imperialism - just state that there are certain things the American military does which makes it appear that they are being as such. Another example to add to the pile would be staying to Haiti for too long, and like I keep saying - I wonder if they'll end up doing that.

My God, you sound like Fox News. "I'm not saying [insert claim here], I'm just asking questions."

I continued mentioned Iraq because it is a good recent example, if I mentioned Vietnam it would be 'out of context due to the time periods'.

As for Fox News, strawman. Stop it. :lol:

They might not stay in Haiti for too long, and great if they don't, but if any country were to do it - I'd place my bet on America. Since when was asking a question a bad thing to do? :lol:

 

[Finger]

Comparing your reasoning to that of Fox News is not a strawman argument. I suggest you look up what the term actually means.

Since when was asking a question a bad thing to do?

When the question is posed with the apparent intent of rhetorically implying an answer, and when the question is dependent upon unsubstantiated assertions. Like if Fox News plastered "Is global warming a fraud like Evolution?" on the screen. It's just a question, right? How can asking a question be bad? Well, first of all, the main question itself already contains the intended answer. "Is global warming a fraud?" implies that global warming is a fraud, even if it doesn't actually say it. Courts disallow questions like that because they can be used to lead the witness (that's why you have to ask "Where were you that night?" Instead of "Were you in your home that night?") But when you ask, "Will the US hang around for too long in a similar fashion to Iraq?" you are not only implying an answer (even if that implication is unintentional,) but you're also making an assertion that you do not substantiate. As though the US's "lengthy" presence in Iraq were incontestable common knowledge. Sure, you attempted to substantiate it later, but not without derailing this thread. That's why I asked you to find a more relevant example, suggesting you look into previous humanitarian operations by the US armed forces and compare them to Haiti.