Boycott Starbucks

[aadams_22 3]

did you talk to corporate or did you talk to another franchise (or whatever he called himself) owner? sounds like you got bamboozled. I'd go back to the person who told you this and force physical violence. preferably of the nutular kickage kind.

This was with someone at corporate, but the name escapes me.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Japan was drunk on their own hubris if they thought they could successfully occupy the western united states.

[scram 1]

Do I really need to point out the difference between isreal's military/political situation during the Yom Kippur era isreal and the millienial United states? Who the fck is invading us? The only countries that could hope to pull that off, never, ever would because of mutually assured destruction.

I wasn't comparing the impetus. I was simply pointing out the need for ground forces in any conflict, even when you have air supremacy.

Now.. attacking our "interests" is a whole other matter...this goes beyond nation defense and into international power brokering.. THIS Is the reason why we have a large standing army, to protect US interests AKA our power and our money... These are perfectly understandable reasons for a nationstate to have a large army, but it's not something that I would want to die for, nor is it something that I'm going to give blind, uncritical praise for those who chose to join up. Because John Q Soldier who signed up for the army to "protect our freedoms" isn't dying to protect our freedoms.. he's dying to protect our profit margin. And that, to me, seems like a sucker play.

Well, I think there is a lot of truth to that. There isn't much question that a large part of 'the lie' involves taking a spade and convincing everyone that it is anything but a spade by way of tweaking the nomenclature. (i.e- "The Patriot Act")I think the real question is this; Are US interests not worth protecting?To the die-hard leftist who spends half of his life bitching about "the corporations", probably not. The lives of such leftists are so menial and of such little significance that the larger concepts which motivate and sustain our way of life (the very same way of life that they themselves enjoy) cannot be conceived by them, thus we can't really expect them to actually support any sort of sacrifice on its behalf. Secondly, John Q Soldier was the one dropping into Afghanistan after the towers came down. Not you. You might be so flat minded that you just cannot extricate "Iraq" from the unfortunate concept of "war" in general, but with you, I really don't think that's the case. You're smarter than that. If you don't think that toppling the nation-state that shielded Bin Laden after 9/11 was the right thing to do, by all means... Elaborate on that one. In short, yes. Our forces should be used to protect our interests (financial or otherwise), they should be used in defense, they should be used in a punitive capacity against Crapistans that raise cells of terrorists against us, but no, they probably shouldn't be used to crusade in Iraq or Vietnam.With you, you make no distinction. You simply scream "IRAQ", plug your ears to everything else, then immediately launch into the typical leftist "CUT MILITARY FUNDING" song and dance.

[Nikki_N 17]

The United States mainland was first shelled by the Axis on February 23, 1942 when the Japanese submarine I-17 attacked the Ellwood oil production facilities at Goleta, near Santa Barbara, California. Although only a catwalk and pumphouse were damaged, I-17 captain Nishino Kozo radioed Tokyo that he had left Santa Barbara in flames. No casualties were reported and the total cost of the damage was estimated at approximately $500.Bahahahahaha!Article I found

[hank213 1,823]

Really? Huh! Can you link a source? I'm interested in this now.

I read an interview years ago with the Japanese general that signed the surrender treaty on the Missiouri. When asked about Japan potentially invading the U.S. mainland he responded that the plan was discarded after study of private ownership of firearms as well as organized shooting programs in groups such as the boy scouts accompanied with the prospect of civilian resistance and guerilla warfare. He said something along the lines of: "We did not wish to be caught in that kind of quagmire." Just a little tidbit of history for ya.

[grocery_mony 8]

Tottally off topic but has anyone ever seen a straight male barrista working at Starbucks?

[Nikki_N 17]

I read an interview years ago with the Japanese general that signed the surrender treaty on the Missiouri. When asked about Japan potentially invading the U.S. mainland he responded that the plan was discarded after study of private ownership of firearms as well as organized shooting programs in groups such as the boy scouts accompanied with the prospect of civilian resistance and guerilla warfare. He said something along the lines of: "We did not wish to be caught in that kind of quagmire." Just a little tidbit of history for ya.

That's great!

[Nikki_N 17]

Tottally off topic but has anyone ever seen a straight male barrista working at Starbucks?

Yes.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I think the real question is this; Are US interests not worth protecting?To the die-hard leftist who spends half of his life bitching about "the corporations", probably not. The lives of such leftists are so menial and of such little significance that the larger concepts which motivate and sustain our way of life (the very same way of life that they themselves enjoy) cannot be conceived by them, thus we can't really expect them to actually support any sort of sacrifice on its behalf.

I love this, this is beautiful.. you use this as a chance to bash "leftists".. The question isn't "Are US interests not worth protecting" the question is " To Whom is it worth it to protect those interests" You say it's not in the "leftist" parasite's interest, but guess who else's interest it's not in? The enlisted man.... the vast bulk of enlisted me are poor, and are entering the military as a way of bettering their economic status, or because they have few other (legal) employment options. The political/coporate/military elite are the one's who's interests are being protected in Iraq.. and it is the enlisted man who you are so willing to sacrifice. I understand fully why the elites want to protect their interests, but I think you are a stone cold sucker to die to make another man rich.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I read an interview years ago with the Japanese general that signed the surrender treaty on the Missiouri. When asked about Japan potentially invading the U.S. mainland he responded that the plan was discarded after study of private ownership of firearms as well as organized shooting programs in groups such as the boy scouts accompanied with the prospect of civilian resistance and guerilla warfare. He said something along the lines of: "We did not wish to be caught in that kind of quagmire." Just a little tidbit of history for ya.

Was this interview in "Guns and Ammo?"

[Miguel McHarris 0]

They didn't actually attack the west coast or the east coast, but they sure as hell planned to. Answers.com has all the answers. I know planning it and doing it are two separate things, but there isn't a peace loving country on this Earth that wouldn't have entered that war, especially given the circumstances we were facing.

[7upncider 0]

Really? Huh! Can you link a source? I'm interested in this now.

Cant link sources but if want I can send you some books about the war and some copies of old newspaper clippings that my grandfather had. I think I still have some books around from college days that has all the info you want. I will look on here to see if i can find them online for yea.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Oh, and I totally forgot my point.. A large standing army was not necessary and not used in Afghanistan. Special forces and Air superiority was used. The fact, as I see it, there are only 3 real ways you can fight terrorists, only one of which requires a large army ( by the way, don't confuse my desire for a smaller army with a smaller budget. I'm perfectly fine spending massive amounts of money keeping our technological superiority, and think the vast bulk of our military budget should be spent on research). One, You use special forces/intelligence agencies/ air superiority... you need massive amounts of spies and agents infiltrating, massive amounts of survalience, use missiles and bombs to take out the easily bombed camps and special forces to take out the bases that can't be. This method will never been 100 percent effective, but it's probably the most realistic.the second way, and it can go hand and hand, is massive upgrades in the reduction of personal privacy and freedoms in the United States, massive upgrades in domestic intelligence gathering I personally think this is a very dangerous road towards Orwellian totalitarianism.. and future citizen will pay the price of our fear for safety. Depending on the level of survalience and rights restrictions, you could probably be pretty effective at stemming terrorism, but at a great, great price.the third way is massive genocide. For this you'd need a large standing army. You would have to go in, and murder millions upon millions of arabs, and re-educate and brain wash the ones we don't kill. You would also deport all muslims from teh US (or, alternatively, send them to happy camps). Murder on a massive, massive scale would A) wipe out a pool of potential terrorists and B) the rest of the world would live in fear that they would be next, and would be pasified. YOu wouldn't be able to half *** it, because slaughtering only a portion of middle eastern muslims would only steel the surviving muslims against us. No, it would have to be on a truly, truly massive scale, on a scale that would pale the final solution. The idea that the US would do this is ridiculous, of course.... The problem is, our military is being used in such a manner, that it's a half assed verison of number three.. we are destabilizing muslim states, the result of which will be more and more and more terrorists. The good news is that by invading and never leaving Iraq, we have a nice place where all the terrorists can focus their attacks... as long as they are there, the terrorists can kill poor enlisted men in road bombs, and not try and infiltrate the USA and attempt domestic acts of terrorism on wealthy americans. I'm not sure if this is a secret goal of Iraq or not, but it is a delightful ancillary benefit.

[king_tanner 84]

Tottally off topic but has anyone ever seen a straight male barrista working at Starbucks?

No but I saw a transvestite working at Taco Bell today.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I'll never understand two huge blunders that occured during WW2.. i know hindsite is 50/50 and all that.. but pearl Harbor and Germany's handling of the Russian invasion just seem so titanically huge mistakes. Why would you want to wake the sleeping giant of the US? While it's true that the FDR government wanted to enter the war, the vast, vast amount of Americans wanted to stay out of it, right up until pearl harbor. Japan had plenty on it's plate in securing asia, and they would have gotten vast amounts of natural resources from their asian holdings. Why they wanted to enter a battle with a country that had a massive industrial and resource advantage over them, I'll never know, unless it was just pure hubris.But Germany was even stupider. It's not like germany didn't have historical lessons about what fighting a war with Russia meant. They advanced so far beyond their supply lines, it made no sense at all... Live by the crazy, charismatic dictator, you die by it, I suppose.

[Miguel McHarris 0]

Agree 100%. We had no reason to get involved up until Pearl Harbor, but in the end power, greed and insanity ruled the day for the Germans, the Japanese and the Italians.

[scram 1]

Oh, and I totally forgot my point.. A large standing army was not necessary and not used in Afghanistan. Special forces and Air superiority was used.

Uh... Wrong? We have a very substantial "regular" presence in Afghanistan.Special forces are "strike forces" (and in this I include airborne). They are not a "replacement" for fully supported columns of troops and ground-force regulars. Rather, they are put in ahead of them to soften things up and gather intelligence. You cannot fight a war using men who are only supplied by what they can squeeze into a jump ruck. You cannot supply soldiers unless you have bases to do it, and you cannot establish bases without ground forces. You just cannot win wars without regular ground forces.The entire purpose of war is to destroy your enemies ability or will to resist. Can't be done from a plane, unless your enemy is one guy in a tent.

The fact, as I see it, there are only 3 real ways you can fight terrorists, One, You use special forces/intelligence agencies/ air superiority... you need massive amounts of spies and agents infiltrating, massive amounts of survalience, use missiles and bombs to take out the easily bombed camps and special forces to take out the bases that can't be. This method will never been 100 percent effective, but it's probably the most realistic.the second way, and it can go hand and hand, is massive upgrades in the reduction of personal privacy and freedoms in the United States. the third way is massive genocide.

I agree with that. Those seem to be our three choices. We don't have the balls for #3, we don't have the will for #1 so the easiest thing would probably be #2.

[brvheart 1,752]

THis is an excellent point. Whether or not we should have got into Iraq in the first place is a completely seperate issue from what should we do now.. we've made a royal mess of it, and I certainly am not a big fan of just leaving it to chaos.. but lets not have any illusions about what's going on over there..we're there to protect US regional interests, not to "protect our freedom"

This is your opinion, and it could very well be false. But don't act like you live inside Bush's head, all you're doing is guessing.

[scram 1]

I'll never understand two huge blunders that occured during WW2.. i know hindsite is 20/20 and all that.. but pearl Harbor and Germany's handling of the Russian invasion just seem so titanically huge mistakes. Why would you want to wake the sleeping giant of the US? While it's true that the FDR government wanted to enter the war, the vast, vast amount of Americans wanted to stay out of it, right up until pearl harbor. Japan had plenty on it's plate in securing asia, and they would have gotten vast amounts of natural resources from their asian holdings. Why they wanted to enter a battle with a country that had a massive industrial and resource advantage over them, I'll never know, unless it was just pure hubris.But Germany was even stupider. It's not like germany didn't have historical lessons about what fighting a war with Russia meant. They advanced so far beyond their supply lines, it made no sense at all... Live by the crazy, charismatic dictator, you die by it, I suppose.

Hubris on both accounts. Hubris on the part of Japanese Generals and hubris on the part of Hitler.

[brvheart 1,752]

You over blow the importance of the American Revolution and under estimate the importance of the French Revolution. History's wheels grind on, and Europe would have undergone drastic political upheaval during the 19th century, with or without the american revolution. All the american revolution may have done was speed things along by a decade or two.

So in other words... it was the foundation for world democracy. Thanks for agreeing.foun·da·tion: The act of founding, especially the establishment of an institution with provisions for future maintenance.

I wish Izzard was a world leader.

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The entire purpose of war is to destroy your enemies ability or will to resist. Can't be done from a plane, unless your enemy is one guy in a tent.

So, what happened in Japan, then.. exactly?

[scram 1]

So, what happened in Japan, then.. exactly?

LOL @ blind, dogmatic tards

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

So in other words... it was the foundation for world democracy. Thanks for agreeing.foun·da·tion: The act of founding, especially the establishment of an institution with provisions for future maintenance.

I was thinking you meant more the metaphorical house foundation sort of thing.. My point is this... A) the American Revolution was a bunch of elites founding an elitist society in breaking from the elitist british society. While the principals it was founded on were more enlightened than Brittain's government, they government they formed was hardly democratic. Only male landholders could vote, and there were slaves, for christs sake. It's the French Revolution that started the ball rolling for democratization of Europe. If the American Revolution never would have happened, Britain still would have democratized, they were well on their way down that road to begun with, and the American states more than likely would have suffered the same, horrible fate that Australia and Canada did.. that is.. becoming free and democratic societies. The French Revolution was the first time that the people, the actual common, poor people, had any power what so ever... it was the French Revolution, and it's implication, IE the mobilization and revolutionary potential of the lower classes, that forced European States, and the United States, into becoming more democratic and extending rights to all citizens, not just the elite. The revolutionary potential of the lower classes, and the fear that it caused, were inevitable... I'll do a little SAT to illustrate my point.. The French Revolution is to Christ as The American Revolution is to John the Baptist.. IE an incidental fortelling of a greater movement. The American Revolution just looks much bigger to us now that it was to the world at the time because A) it's our history, so it always going to seem more important that it is globally to us and B) of what the American Revolution eventually turned into.. IE the most powerful country in the world.. it was far, far from having that kind of importance when Western Europe Democratized.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

LOL @ blind, dogmatic tards

"The entire purpose of war is to destroy your enemies ability or will to resist. Can't be done from a plane, unless your enemy is one guy in a tent. "So you're saying that the nuclear bomb had nothing to do with destroying Japan's ability or will to resist, and it was the occupation force that did this.. which occupied Japan... after it's unconditional surrender.. when. what occurred? Oh.. that's right.. the ****ing bomb. The occupation force was necessary for the peace, not the war.

[digitalmonkey 929]

This thread isn't about Starbucks anymore is it?