Are you ready to go to war?

Started by jrodefeld, September 15, 2014, 07:47:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jrodefeld

Quote from: taxed on September 16, 2014, 11:31:20 AM
Right.  Otherwise, they'd love us.

I never said that.  But there is a clear cause and effect of our actions around the world.  I know you all think the Muslim world would hate and resent us exactly the same amount regardless of our foreign policy but that is simply not the case.  There are plenty of radicals and extremists in that part of the world but there are plenty who would merely like to be left alone and not be subject to continual intervention and interference by an outside imperialist power.

If you don't think our policies cause resentment and fuel radicalism and retaliation against us, then you are simply not living in reality and/or you haven't read a thing about the subject of blowback and suicide terrorism.


quiller

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 16, 2014, 09:12:11 PM
?

Snowden committed treason. Spies may be shot by firing squad. End of statement, end of dirtbag.

Dori

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 16, 2014, 09:16:38 PMIf you don't think our policies cause resentment and fuel radicalism and retaliation against us, then you are simply not living in reality and/or you haven't read a thing about the subject of blowback and suicide terrorism.

I don't think our policies have anything to do with it.  So far, the thousands that they have brutally murdered are Iraqi and Syrian.  The reason they killed them was because of their religion.

ISIS wants a Caliphate.  They want to establish Sharia law in all the world.  A hundred years ago was the Armenian Holocaust.  They murdered a million and a half Christians.  September 11th and 12th 1683 they tried to retake Constantinople, but were defeated by the Germans and the Polish.

The Muslim Brotherhood (who also wants a Caliphate) was formed in Egypt and made a pact with Hitler during WWII.  This was in part to exterminate Jews, but also, to fight British rule. 

You can blame religion or you can go back to the beginning to the defeat of the Roman Empire, but one thing you can't do is change history and the fact that there is an extremely radical part of Islam that will probably never change.  This section of Islam hasn't changed in centuries and it's naïve of us to think it ever will. 






The danger to America is not Barack Obama but the citizens capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.

Billy's bayonet

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 15, 2014, 10:04:30 AM
First of all, Glenn Greenwald.  He didn't "enable" Snowden.  He merely did what any honest journalist would do which is report on a newsworthy story from documents provided by a source.  Snowden is an American hero and a patriot for informing his fellow citizens about the government's systematic abuse of their rights. 


What would I do if a family member was beheaded by ISIS?  I would want revenge, absolutely.  I would want to find the people responsible and kill them.  However, I would NEVER ask you to sacrifice your son or daughter in a military effort to provide me with some personal satisfaction.  I would never support the extortion of my fellow man to pay for a war they may not support.  I would never allow my personal tragedy to become a pawn for war propaganda by Israel-first politicians and the military industrial complex who have far different motives for going to war.

Here is another angle for you to consider.  What if your family member was on the receiving end of a drone strike from a foreign power?  What if your entire family and relatives were killed during a wedding?  What if a foreign power constantly undermined your self determination and sold military equipment to violent terrorists and radical extremists?  What if a foreign power continually referred to you and everyone you know in disparaging and arguably racist terms and considered the innocents murdered from the air merely "collateral damage"?

Would you be angry?  Would you want to go to war?

Now I certainly don't defend ISIS.  These people are savages of the worst kind.  They are easily as bad as we are being told they are. 

What you are doing though is not drawing a distinction between these lunatics and others who merely happen to be within the borders of Iraq or Syria.  You do understand that it is just an accident of birth that you happened to be born in the United States right?  That cosmic accident doesn't make you inherently superior to a child who happened to be born in Syria.

What could possibly be accomplished by launching air strikes?  Would you then support boots on the ground?  What is the end goal?

Look at what we have done to Iraq.  I get that you don't give a shit about the welfare of the people of Iraq or Syria, but anyone with a brain can see that life was infinitely better under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein than it is under the chaos that arose from the destruction wrought by our military.


First off you a moron for calling Snowden a 'Hero' he's a traitor, a piece of dog shit who likely turned over whatever sensitive information the NSA had ( I Agree improperly, possibly criminally) on possibly every American....bank accounts, personal transactions, little picayune bits of info NSA didn;t need to begin with and TURNED THEM OVER TO AMERICA's enemies.....CHINA and RUSSIA....why else do you think we are experiencing wave after wave of hack attacks from those two countries?

Snowden has likely done more damage to the average American citizen than ISIS has.

Now we shall address Saddam and the Middle east.

Having an egotistical power mad, homicidal maniac in CHARGE of a country is NEVER a good thing, engaging in a humiliating military action against such a psychopathic foe, especially with the arab mindset for blood feud AND LEAVING HIM IN CHARGE IS SHEER MADNESS.
Sooner or later Saddam would have started some shit and we'd have to fight him, possibly when he had WMD's (which I beleive he did and are in Syria now).

So you can get on your Liberal Tarian anti war rant and start spewing "moralistic' points of view on people who have none which MIDDLE EAST TERRORISTS certainly rank first.

Do it right, make a stand and kill them, by any means possible...other wise they'll kill you.
Thats not war mongering...thats self defense.


Evil operates best when under a disguise

WHEN A CRIME GOES UNPUNISHED THE WORLD IS UNBALANCED

WHEN A WRONG IS UNAVENGED THE HEAVENS LOOK DOWN ON US IN SHAME

IMPEACH BIDEN

jrodefeld

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 18, 2014, 06:13:41 PM
First off you a moron for calling Snowden a 'Hero' he's a traitor, a piece of dog shit who likely turned over whatever sensitive information the NSA had ( I Agree improperly, possibly criminally) on possibly every American....bank accounts, personal transactions, little picayune bits of info NSA didn;t need to begin with and TURNED THEM OVER TO AMERICA's enemies.....CHINA and RUSSIA....why else do you think we are experiencing wave after wave of hack attacks from those two countries?

Snowden has likely done more damage to the average American citizen than ISIS has.

Do you have a single shred of evidence to support this accusation?  IF Snowden indeed collected this information to hurt American national security and actually provided sensitive data to Russia and China that would permit those countries to gain advantage over us and harm our security, then I would agree that he is a traitor.  Providing national security secrets to an enemy is pretty much the classic definition of "treason". 

The problem is that there is absolutely no evidence that this took place.  In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that he took every precaution to protect national security while at the same time informing Americans about the civil liberties abuses that their government was committed in secret.  It is also important to realize that a lot of the NSA stories that have been released have implicated other nations and caused debate among their citizens about the bulk data collection that other nations are doing against their own people.  So the idea that Snowden was trying to harm the United States, or singled them out to the benefit of any other nation is absurd.  He has been consistent in his condemnation of every country's abuses of the civil rights or their citizens.

Why do you spout off and make accusations without a shred of evidence?  Why would you criticize Snowden, yet defend the military and their imperial aggressions and war crimes?  Remember, our government is not "us".  "We" are not the government.  "Weakening" our government is not the same thing as hurting American citizens.  In fact it is quite the opposite. 

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 18, 2014, 06:13:41 PM
Now we shall address Saddam and the Middle east.

Having an egotistical power mad, homicidal maniac in CHARGE of a country is NEVER a good thing, engaging in a humiliating military action against such a psychopathic foe, especially with the arab mindset for blood feud AND LEAVING HIM IN CHARGE IS SHEER MADNESS.
Sooner or later Saddam would have started some shit and we'd have to fight him, possibly when he had WMD's (which I beleive he did and are in Syria now).

Why don't you spend more time concerning yourself with the egotistical power mad homicidal maniacs that are running OUR government before you concern yourself with some two bit dictator of a third world nation on the other side of the globe, someone who NEVER threatened the national security of the United States?

Nobody is saying that Saddam was a great person.  He was a politician after all.  However, given the realities of the radical Islamic factions and alternatives that existed, having a secular strong man like Saddam is actually the preferable solution. 

Is it really better to create a power vacuum where extremists like ISIS come in and we see a bloody civil war between Sunnis, Shiites and every other faction in that part of the world?

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 18, 2014, 06:13:41 PM

So you can get on your Liberal Tarian anti war rant and start spewing "moralistic' points of view on people who have none which MIDDLE EAST TERRORISTS certainly rank first.

Do it right, make a stand and kill them, by any means possible...other wise they'll kill you.
Thats not war mongering...thats self defense.

Talk about a perversion of the phrase "self defense".  So, in other words, some day radical Muslim extremists might have the capacity to launch an attack against the United States so we have to preemptively attack and kill as many of them as we can, no doubt killing hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians in the process?  And you have the gall to call that "defense".

I'm not trying to convince Muslims, or terrorists, or any other middle eastern government or population.  I am trying to speak to Americans with a conscience, who are capable of recognizing the blowback and unintended consequences of our foreign policy.  We don't need to concern ourselves with the internal problems of other nations.

You conservative types have massively exaggerated the supposed threat of radical Islam.  In the first place, the threat to our national security would be DRASTICALLY reduced if we withdrew from the Middle East and stopped offering unconditional support to Israel.  To the extent that the threat of terrorist attacks would persist, we can deal with that just as we deal with every other act of crime domestically. 

supsalemgr

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2014, 12:46:43 PM
Do you have a single shred of evidence to support this accusation?  IF Snowden indeed collected this information to hurt American national security and actually provided sensitive data to Russia and China that would permit those countries to gain advantage over us and harm our security, then I would agree that he is a traitor.  Providing national security secrets to an enemy is pretty much the classic definition of "treason". 

The problem is that there is absolutely no evidence that this took place.  In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that he took every precaution to protect national security while at the same time informing Americans about the civil liberties abuses that their government was committed in secret.  It is also important to realize that a lot of the NSA stories that have been released have implicated other nations and caused debate among their citizens about the bulk data collection that other nations are doing against their own people.  So the idea that Snowden was trying to harm the United States, or singled them out to the benefit of any other nation is absurd.  He has been consistent in his condemnation of every country's abuses of the civil rights or their citizens.

Why do you spout off and make accusations without a shred of evidence?  Why would you criticize Snowden, yet defend the military and their imperial aggressions and war crimes?  Remember, our government is not "us".  "We" are not the government.  "Weakening" our government is not the same thing as hurting American citizens.  In fact it is quite the opposite. 

Why don't you spend more time concerning yourself with the egotistical power mad homicidal maniacs that are running OUR government before you concern yourself with some two bit dictator of a third world nation on the other side of the globe, someone who NEVER threatened the national security of the United States?

Nobody is saying that Saddam was a great person.  He was a politician after all.  However, given the realities of the radical Islamic factions and alternatives that existed, having a secular strong man like Saddam is actually the preferable solution. 

Is it really better to create a power vacuum where extremists like ISIS come in and we see a bloody civil war between Sunnis, Shiites and every other faction in that part of the world?

Talk about a perversion of the phrase "self defense".  So, in other words, some day radical Muslim extremists might have the capacity to launch an attack against the United States so we have to preemptively attack and kill as many of them as we can, no doubt killing hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians in the process?  And you have the gall to call that "defense".

I'm not trying to convince Muslims, or terrorists, or any other middle eastern government or population.  I am trying to speak to Americans with a conscience, who are capable of recognizing the blowback and unintended consequences of our foreign policy.  We don't need to concern ourselves with the internal problems of other nations.

You conservative types have massively exaggerated the supposed threat of radical Islam.  In the first place, the threat to our national security would be DRASTICALLY reduced if we withdrew from the Middle East and stopped offering unconditional support to Israel.  To the extent that the threat of terrorist attacks would persist, we can deal with that just as we deal with every other act of crime domestically.

I have decided you are either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

jrodefeld

Quote from: supsalemgr on September 20, 2014, 02:13:22 PM
I have decided you are either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.

That is not an argument.  I'd love for you to actually demonstrate how I am wrong in what I am saying but merely making a proclamation and calling names is a waste of time.  Either you can refute what I am saying or you cannot. 

Which is it? 

quiller

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2014, 06:02:55 PM
That is not an argument. 

Quite true --- you have no argument that Snowden and Greenwald did not actively conspire to divulge classified material harmful to the U.S.

You root for the traitors.

jrodefeld

Quote from: quiller on September 21, 2014, 01:19:01 AM
Quite true --- you have no argument that Snowden and Greenwald did not actively conspire to divulge classified material harmful to the U.S.

You root for the traitors.

Okay, which piece of information has harmed national security?  Which Greenwald or Washington Post story has helped our enemies or weakened our national defense?

It is absurd for you to ask me to prove a negative.  If you are accusing Snowden, or anyone else for that matter, of a crime like treason then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they are indeed what you say they are.  Otherwise you are being reckless and irresponsible.

Also, it would be nice if one of you could respond with more than a sentence.  Remember you all (or most of you) are advocating that the United States go to war against ISIS while I am opposed to it.  There is a certain gravity and seriousness to the decision to wage war.  You don't know what will come from an escalation of conflict.  You have no idea how many innocent civilians will be killed. 

The least that could be reasonably expected is that you can articulate a compelling argument for WHY it is so vitally necessary that we start up the Iraq war all over again.

I'd like it if someone could actually write a paragraph or two defending this war effort and/or disproving anything I have said on this thread.

Dori

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2014, 01:13:06 PM
Also, it would be nice if one of you could respond with more than a sentence.  Remember you all (or most of you) are advocating that the United States go to war against ISIS while I am opposed to it.  There is a certain gravity and seriousness to the decision to wage war.  You don't know what will come from an escalation of conflict.  You have no idea how many innocent civilians will be killed.

There should be only one reason for us to go to war.  To protect our interests.

According to you, we should just allow ISIS to grow.  Their aim is to take over the Levant.  The Levant today consists of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and part of southern Turkey. 

So far they've been able to conquer a fair amount of territory in a small amount of time, murdering thousands of innocents, conscripting the men while stealing all of their property and resources.  I suppose in your world, this is acceptable, as long we stay out of it, then they won't be mad at us and we will have nothing to worry about. 





The danger to America is not Barack Obama but the citizens capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.

supsalemgr

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2014, 01:13:06 PM
Okay, which piece of information has harmed national security?  Which Greenwald or Washington Post story has helped our enemies or weakened our national defense?

It is absurd for you to ask me to prove a negative.  If you are accusing Snowden, or anyone else for that matter, of a crime like treason then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they are indeed what you say they are.  Otherwise you are being reckless and irresponsible.

Also, it would be nice if one of you could respond with more than a sentence.  Remember you all (or most of you) are advocating that the United States go to war against ISIS while I am opposed to it.  There is a certain gravity and seriousness to the decision to wage war.  You don't know what will come from an escalation of conflict.  You have no idea how many innocent civilians will be killed. 

The least that could be reasonably expected is that you can articulate a compelling argument for WHY it is so vitally necessary that we start up the Iraq war all over again.

I'd like it if someone could actually write a paragraph or two defending this war effort and/or disproving anything I have said on this thread.

OK. I will give it a shot, but feel it is futile as you are obviously ignoring the obvious.

"You have no idea how many innocent civilians will be killed."

That is now off the table since they have killed innocent Americans and pasted it all over the internet. They have also said they were coming to America. Some innocent Americans here have been killed like the kid in NJ. The only thing these heathens understand is meeting 72 virgins. They started, we should finish it.

Now refute why the above is not good reason to go to war with them since they have said they are at war with us.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

quiller

I find it odd that treason now is defended by saying, what did he steal and how did it harm the U.S.?

Isn't the real question, what did he steal that has not yet been released? Are Snowden and Greenwald's defenders willing to admit that even the U.S. Government does not know (or at best has not yet revealed) the extent of those same breaches of security?

Go ahead. Say that everything he DID steal HAS been revealed. Even the feds will say you're wrong if you try.

jrodefeld

Quote from: Dori on September 21, 2014, 01:29:19 PM
There should be only one reason for us to go to war.  To protect our interests.

According to you, we should just allow ISIS to grow.  Their aim is to take over the Levant.  The Levant today consists of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and part of southern Turkey. 

So far they've been able to conquer a fair amount of territory in a small amount of time, murdering thousands of innocents, conscripting the men while stealing all of their property and resources.  I suppose in your world, this is acceptable, as long we stay out of it, then they won't be mad at us and we will have nothing to worry about.

Do you ever stop to really consider how ISIS rose to power?  What factors led to the chaos and dysfunction we are now witnessing?  You would find that our military intervention has a great deal to do with the problems in that region of the world.  There would still be problems in that part of the world of course. 

But too many conservatives act as though these national security "threats" just pop up out of nowhere and are entirely unprovoked.  If, as is demonstrably the case, our ill conceived Iraq War that Bush and Cheney got us into, created geopolitical instability and allowed for the rise of radical extremists like ISIS, then why don't we hesitate to cause further interventions?

If we intervene, ISIS gains a recruiting tool.  The truth is that ISIS is now very weak.  They are not popular even with other middle eastern nations.  Iran hates ISIS, as does Pakistan.  One sure way to make them more popular in the broader Muslim world is to go to war with them.  If they are seen as fighting off a foreign occupier, then they would gain sympathy from people who would otherwise oppose them.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

When you say the reason to go to war is "to protect our interests" I have to disagree.  That is far too vague a statement.  What are "our" interests?  See, I'm a lot more clear.  The only just war is a defensive war.  Every individual has the right to self defense and so logically a group of individuals are permitted to collectively organize for collective defense.  However, no one has the right to use aggression against the person or property of another. 

If ISIS were able to actually launch any sort of attack on the United States, then we would have the right to defend ourselves.  What our government shouldn't be permitted to do is start bombing campaigns against Iraq because ISIS is causing chaos over there.

It would be much better for us to pull our military out of the middle east and permit them to try and work out their problems without our constant intervention.  Then I would say that Americans who are still concerned should wage a propaganda "war" of sorts, and give the people who live in the middle east the knowledge to reform their society.  Send the moderates John Locke and Murray Rothbard literature.  Inform them about Natural Rights and the non aggression principle, about free markets and sound money.  Maybe they would listen and maybe they wouldn't.

But our military is not a useful tool to bring about change in the middle east.  And, let's be honest, the agenda is not really about keeping you safe from the threat of ISIS.  Our "leaders" have far different goals and interests than you or I.  War profiteering, Israeli lobbying and the desire for natural resources play a large role in determining our foreign policy.

jrodefeld

Quote from: supsalemgr on September 21, 2014, 01:32:31 PM
OK. I will give it a shot, but feel it is futile as you are obviously ignoring the obvious.

"You have no idea how many innocent civilians will be killed."

That is now off the table since they have killed innocent Americans and pasted it all over the internet. They have also said they were coming to America. Some innocent Americans here have been killed like the kid in NJ. The only thing these heathens understand is meeting 72 virgins. They started, we should finish it.

Now refute why the above is not good reason to go to war with them since they have said they are at war with us.

ISIS have killed three journalists.  Three.  Granted they killed them in a horribly brutal way and make incendiary videos showing the beheadings.  You said something quite bizarre.  You said that since they killed some innocent people we don't have to concern ourselves with how many innocent people WE kill?  I would assume you would want to hold the United States to a higher moral standard than ISIS?

Here is why we shouldn't go to war.  In the first place you have no moral right to rob me at gunpoint (which is taxation) to fund your favored war.  I don't support this war and there are many Americans who agree with me.  We don't want to support it financially or in any other sense and you should never be allowed to coerce us into supporting violence that we morally object to.

In the second place what about the opportunity cost in diverting huge amounts of resources to a new Iraq War?  If the purported goal is keeping us safe, why wouldn't we spend more money and resources dealing with the crime rate in Chicago, for example?  How many people are killed by homicides every year?  How many people are victims of rape?  And this happens within our borders not halfway around the world. 

Do you understand how by diverting resources towards a war effort, we necessarily reduce their availability to deal with domestic threats?  How many Americans will die from preventable causes because a lack of resources, defense services, police protection or whatever?  There are finite resources and why should we divert a huge number of resources towards military intervention simply because THREE people were killed by ISIS?

You don't have to convince me that ISIS are extreme and brutal.  We all know that.  What is less clear though is why the cost in money, lives and resources is worth it in relation to every other threat that Americans face every year.  And that says nothing about the morality of forcefully stealing MY money to pay for a war that I strongly morally object to.

jrodefeld

Quote from: quiller on September 22, 2014, 01:17:07 AM
I find it odd that treason now is defended by saying, what did he steal and how did it harm the U.S.?

Isn't the real question, what did he steal that has not yet been released? Are Snowden and Greenwald's defenders willing to admit that even the U.S. Government does not know (or at best has not yet revealed) the extent of those same breaches of security?

Go ahead. Say that everything he DID steal HAS been revealed. Even the feds will say you're wrong if you try.

Dude, you are not making any sense whatsoever.  Your posts are incoherent. 

Why are you reflexively defending State power?  You admit that nothing Greenwald published thus far from the Snowden leaks has harmed national security in any way.  Furthermore, you can't provide ANY evidence that Snowden gave any security secrets to any foreign power.  So you resort to speculation that MAYBE he gave secret intelligence to the Russians or Chinese or MAYBE some yet-to-be-published story harms national security.

"Treason" is one of those words that has lost its meaning.  It's like the word "patriot".  If the State, through its actions, has become an enemy of the people it is supposed to be representing, then the act of exposing the secret actions of that State is not treason but rather an act of patriotism.  Patriotism in this case meaning a love and allegiance to the people of a society and not to the ruling elite or State apparatus.