LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[quiller]

you are 100% correct Quill.

I tried telling our little friend here that you have to have an accounting of what the budget money is being spent on before you can arbitrarily cut 40 or 50% or whatever his buffoonish sources are advocating. But only an insider can tell you about the waste and fraud or nonsensical programs the like of which you've identified, remember the $200 hammers and $350 toilet seats the pentagon was paying for?

I was thinking of the territorial mentality within each branch of the military, and of course for GSA and the civilian government purchasing units. Do we TRULY need separate this or separate that for each branch? Just how damned often do the branches change uniforms, including blue camo for the Navy? (True b.s. on a stick, that one.)

Maybe this got its true start during the 1860s war where the army got robbed blind by the sutlers, but it's sure held true ever since for procurement, R&D, and a whole gobsmacking bunch of money for paper. Lots and lots and lots of paper.

[Billy's bayonet]

I was thinking of the territorial mentality within each branch of the military, and of course for GSA and the civilian government purchasing units. Do we TRULY need separate this or separate that for each branch? Just how damned often do the branches change uniforms, including blue camo for the Navy? (True b.s. on a stick, that one.)

Maybe this got its true start during the 1860s war where the army got robbed blind by the sutlers, but it's sure held true ever since for procurement, R&D, and a whole gobsmacking bunch of money for paper. Lots and lots and lots of paper.

The truth of it is War is good for business.

[jrodefeld]

I chose the most stomach-turning. I noticed you didn't supply any examples to back up "but that is not where the money is being spent," because you obviously think catering to perverts and maladjusteds is the way we should go. I don't. Drum them out or return to Don't Ask Don't Tell, but do NOT glorify degenerates in our military.

But the 9/11 attack was okay, Cupcake? Whose side do you root for here, anyway? I want revenge, plain and simple, for the World Trade Center. I want the mussie scumbags terrified at all times of U.S. might. It is the only thing their primitive minds can understand, brute violence. I want them COMPLETELY discouraged from similar attacks in the future.

Instead, Hussein brings in Somalis and tongue-bathes other Mussies. Bah and humbug.

Personally, I don't think our military should be discriminating against gays or any other group, but I don't think we need any particular programs for sensitivity training or anything else either.  Whatever a person's personal sexual preference, I think they should be treated with dignity and respect as individuals.

All these issues are distractions though.  The question I am concerned with is what are our foreign policy objectives?  Using our military for defensive purposes is legitimate, but using our military to start offensive wars of aggression, impose economic sanctions or maintain foreign military bases are NOT defensible positions as far as I am concerned.

Who said the 9/11 attack was okay?  The attack of 9/11, regardless of the motivations for such an attack, warranted a military response.  The problem is that the response our government provided was non-sensical.  We've killed Osama bin Laden, a decade after distracting ourselves with nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The mere fact of recognizing that an attack warrants a retaliation does not mean that we cannot analyze the motivations for the attacks. 

If our presence in the middle east creates resentment and terrorist recruitment, then we would be wise to remove the incentive for terrorists to attack us.  This does not excuse the attacks, but it makes them less likely to occur in the future.

As I've mentioned in another post, Robert Pape has done some of the most extensive work on the motivations for suicide terrorism as anyone in the field of political science and his conclusions are that foreign occupation provides the primary motivation for suicide terrorist attacks against the occupying power.

Similarly, Michael Scheuer and Chalmers Johnson have authored definitive works on this subject.  Scheuer, it should be noted, is an old-school conservative and he endorsed Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention during the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries.

If there is a coordinated and planned attack on the United States as was the case on 9/11, then the United States has reason to respond.  In such an event, we have reason to capture or kill those directly responsible for carrying out the attack.

But waging a war against Islam, occupying a Middle Eastern nation and intervening into their affairs, only creates the incentive for more terrorist attacks.  We only stoke the resentment and boost recruitment.

This is only common sense, if only you'd put aside your Islamophobia for a minute and consider how any group of people would feel if they were on the receiving end of US foreign policy.

[Cryptic Bert]

He might be a bit insane.

[quiller]

Who said the 9/11 attack was okay?  The attack of 9/11, regardless of the motivations for such an attack, warranted a military response.  The problem is that the response our government provided was non-sensical.  We've killed Osama bin Laden, a decade after distracting ourselves with nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The mere fact of recognizing that an attack warrants a retaliation does not mean that we cannot analyze the motivations for the attacks. 

If our presence in the middle east creates resentment and terrorist recruitment, then we would be wise to remove the incentive for terrorists to attack us.  This does not excuse the attacks, but it makes them less likely to occur in the future.

Yeah, run, Cupcake---run! And don't look back, something muslim might be gaining on you! Obviously you think these bowel-waste will leave us alone if we only lay down in surrender.

But waging a war against Islam, occupying a Middle Eastern nation and intervening into their affairs, only creates the incentive for more terrorist attacks.  We only stoke the resentment and boost recruitment.]

And their actions did NOT stoke incentive for bombing during the Haaj? Yeah, when attacked, DO NOTHING, we'd only stoke resentment among those who want us dead anyway.

This is only common sense, if only you'd put aside your Islamophobia for a minute and consider how any group of people would feel if they were on the receiving end of US foreign policy.

Yes, if somebody kills 2,800 people in one morning---SURRENDER!  Think of the KILLERS' feelings and forget our own, it's the liberal way! Recognize a false religion and afford it equal merit to Christianity while you're at it.

Liberal halfwits elected Hussein the Muslim Obama. It's been downhill from there.

[Solar]

He might be a bit insane.

Perfect descriptor...

[walkstall]

He might be a bit insane.

Hmm... might   

[Solar]

Dictionary description for "Insane": Very foolish, bonkers, batty, certifiable, demented, harebrained, and the list continues alphabetically.

[supsalemgr]

Dictionary description for "Insane": Very foolish, bonkers, batty, certifiable, demented, harebrained, and the list continues alphabetically.

Does the dictionary have the same description for "liberal"? 

[tac]

Does the dictionary have the same description for "liberal"? 

It's the same.

[Solar]

Does the dictionary have the same description for "liberal"? 

It does say "loose", so whether it's referring to sexual activity or their screws, it does appear spot on.

[jrodefeld]

Yeah, run, Cupcake---run! And don't look back, something muslim might be gaining on you! Obviously you think these bowel-waste will leave us alone if we only lay down in surrender.

And their actions did NOT stoke incentive for bombing during the Haaj? Yeah, when attacked, DO NOTHING, we'd only stoke resentment among those who want us dead anyway.

Yes, if somebody kills 2,800 people in one morning---SURRENDER!  Think of the KILLERS' feelings and forget our own, it's the liberal way! Recognize a false religion and afford it equal merit to Christianity while you're at it.

Liberal halfwits elected Hussein the Muslim Obama. It's been downhill from there.

Here is a simple question.  If your entire family were murdered during a wedding party by a drone strike would this make you more or less likely to want to strike back against the foreign nation that perpetrated the attack?

If a foreign nation imposed crippling economic sanctions that deprived us of access to food and medicine, causing hundreds of thousands to die needlessly, would this make you more or less likely to seek revenge against the nation that did this?

The concept of blowback has been well known in our CIA, the military and academia for decades.  Why do you fail to recognize the concept?

There are a great number of non-Muslims in the middle east who have fallen victim to drone strikes, sanctions, and things of that nature.  And ISIS has recruited non-Muslims.

The data on this topic is quite clear.  We've been fighting a war on terror for fifteen years and we've seen a massive increase in worldwide terrorist attacks.  Your only answer is to keep doing what we've been doing, except even more.  This clearly has not worked.

Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer and Chalmers Johnson have studied this phenomenon extensively.  Scheuer was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit and he knows more about the motivations for Islamic terrorists than almost anyone.

Michael Scheuer:

Terrorists Don't Hate USA For Our Freedoms, It's Our Interventionist Foreign Policy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES-xWjzZwZE

Robert Pape interview on The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GunwBXxGdwQ

Chalmers Johnson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SoE9vBc6I



There is literally nothing to support your position.  Everyone who knows anything about the subject recognizes that the motivation for suicide terrorism is primarily military occupation.  Terrorists resent the meddling in their affairs by a foreign power and they strike back any way they can.  Terrorism is the most effective tactic for a very small and powerless group of people to fight against a very strong and powerful adversary.

I don't support any act of terrorism.  And we should treat terrorist attacks like we treat any other crime.  The perpetrators should be captured or killed.

But we should recognize that there is good reason for people in the middle east to hate us.  There is every reason to hate the United States military for killing innocent people around the world and interfering with the autonomy of sovereign nations.  This doesn't excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians, of course.

Why not comment on the three videos I linked to?  You might learn something by listening to people who have actually studied the matter.

[quiller]

I'll wait for the Readers Digest edition, without the "if" scenarios and ravings from "experts" known only to themselves.

There is nothing to support my position, drooler? World Trade Center wasn't enough?

[quiller]

Dictionary description for "Insane": Very foolish, bonkers, batty, certifiable, demented, harebrained, and the list continues alphabetically.

Eight years under either one of these losers, won't all of us fit that description?

[tac]

Eight years under either one of these losers, won't all of us fit that description?

I'm already there.