Talk about fuckin PC.... :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs
Adjusted address.
walks
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchicktech.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FREALITY_SLAP_L1.jpg&hash=c79f8ee962a5e16174bab833e508e31047fad19f)
Wow. He sounds like a bitter woman.
Quote from: Solar on August 31, 2016, 08:44:38 PM
Talk about fuckin PC.... :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs
Adjusted address.
walks
I'v seen this clown as a misplaced democrat ever since he ran for the GOP nomination 2012. The only reason he is a Libertatrian is he had his ass handed to him then.
Good place for the Bernie supporters to roost. :rolleyes:
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 01, 2016, 04:45:43 AM
I'v seen this clown as a misplaced democrat ever since he ran for the GOP nomination 2012. The only reason he is a Libertatrian is he had his ass handed to him then.
If I could, I'd prove it is the Establishment that placed him in the Libertarian movement as a way of keeping the base from finding a new home in the movement.
For the same reason they backed Kelly Ward, knowing the base would never support a RINO, clearing the way for McCON.
This Ladies and Gentlemen is what we call a Hissy Fit....kinda of like a Petulant teenage girl throws when Mom tells her she can't go to the Juniors dance with a 23 year old unemployed artist named Shemp.
Freaking Libral-Tarians and their PC.... :rolleyes:
We officially have a 3 ring circus.
I ALMOST liked Johnson. Whoo ... I dodged a bullet that time!
They are NOT "undocumented" -- that just means that the paperwork isn't completed yet -- they are here illegally in violation of the sovereign laws of this nation and I really don't give a sloppy wet fart if the term offends them because it is the only accurate term, except for "foreign invaders".
I don't like them and I want them out of my country. The only way I'd accept them as simply being "undocumented" is if US sovereignty extended to the northern border of Guatemala.
Quote from: Citizen Bill on September 05, 2016, 03:03:18 PM
I ALMOST liked Johnson. Whoo ... I dodged a bullet that time!
They are NOT "undocumented" -- that just means that the paperwork isn't completed yet -- they are here illegally in violation of the sovereign laws of this nation and I really don't give a sloppy wet fart if the term offends them because it is the only accurate term, except for "foreign invaders".
I don't like them and I want them out of my country. The only way I'd accept them as simply being "undocumented" is if US sovereignty extended to the northern border of Guatemala.
I an NOT PC about it!
WET BACKS
Quote from: walkstall on September 05, 2016, 03:31:17 PM
I an NOT PC about it! WET BACKS
Worst Libertarian Ticket I've ever seen.
LINO
Quote from: Rotwang on September 06, 2016, 12:46:29 PM
Worst Libertarian Ticket I've ever seen.
LINO
Has there ever been a good one?
Quote from: Rotwang on September 06, 2016, 12:46:29 PM
Worst Libertarian Ticket I've ever seen.
LINO
LINO, is that Libertarian in Name Only?
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 06, 2016, 12:56:16 PM
Has there ever been a good one?
To date since the party's inception? Not a damn one!
When was the last time the libertarian party nominated a libertarian?
Quote from: Citizen Bill on September 05, 2016, 03:03:18 PM
I ALMOST liked Johnson. Whoo ... I dodged a bullet that time!
They are NOT "undocumented" -- that just means that the paperwork isn't completed yet -- they are here illegally in violation of the sovereign laws of this nation and I really don't give a sloppy wet fart if the term offends them because it is the only accurate term, except for "foreign invaders".
I don't like them and I want them out of my country. The only way I'd accept them as simply being "undocumented" is if US sovereignty extended to the northern border of Guatemala.
Same here..
I wanted my vote to make a statement and thought about Johnson... Then I watch a town hall he and his sidekick did on CNN..
Needless to say, he is nothing but a lib
Quote from: AmericanMom on September 07, 2016, 04:57:32 PM
Same here..
I wanted my vote to make a statement and thought about Johnson... Then I watch a town hall he and his sidekick did on CNN..
Needless to say, he is nothing but a lib
Always has been.
To the last Gary Johnson supporter to leave the room, please turn off the lights.
Quote from: ATimeForChoosing on September 08, 2016, 03:04:03 PM
To the last Gary Johnson supporter to leave the room, please turn off the lights.
Are there really any leftist? Um, I mean left?
As I've stated many times, I am a libertarian and Gary has tremendous shortcomings from my perspective. Given the poor choices in this election season, I am considering voting for Gary even with his many flaws. However, this particular clip doesn't bother me all that much.
Most libertarians believe in generally free immigration. Some other libertarians take the Milton Freedman approach and believe that as long as we have a welfare state, we cannot have free immigration. But all libertarians believe that, in a libertarian society with no State or a very minimal State, there will be no prohibitions on the free movement of people. You have the right to tell anyone you want to stay off your property, but you don't have the right to prohibit people from moving onto other peoples property if they are invited.
I don't think Gary is trying to be PC here. Knowing him like I do, he genuinely believes in free immigration and that immigrants benefit our society far more than they hurt our society. The interviewer in this clip is absolutely correct that the act of crossing the border without going through the State-mandated proper channels is technically illegal.
This is just a semantic disagreement over which term you prefer. For a libertarian, whether something is "legal" or "illegal" according to some arbitrary edict by the State is not really relevant to the moral judgment we render upon peoples actions.
Conservatives prefer the term "illegal" because it implies we should render a negative moral judgment on a person simply for the fact that they refused to abide by the State's legislation and bureaucratic processes.
The Welfare State is another matter entirely. I would be supportive of a policy whereby new immigrants are restricted from applying for social welfare programs for an indefinite period, or for five years, ten years or whatever is feasible. In fact, I'd be supportive of repealing the Welfare State for American citizens as well. But that is a separate issue to whether we should permit the blockading of our borders and interfering with the free movement of people.
What is your motivation for wanting to restrict immigration? From my perspective, you can have any damn opinion about Mexicans or Muslims or any other group you wish. You can not invite them onto your property and you can choose not to interact with them. But you should not have the right to forcefully prevent the movement of people on property that you don't own or interfere with freedom of association.
Another thing that I find frustrating is when you insinuate that a libertarian, whether it's Gary Johnson, myself or anyone else, is really a LIBERAL in disguise when the argument being presented is in fact completely consistent with libertarian principles. What you are really doing is trying to scare conservatives away from considering libertarianism by using a label that is incendiary to a conservative audience. It is dishonest.
Favoring open borders and free immigration is something that most libertarians support. Some liberals may support the same thing, but they support it for very different reasons.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 08, 2016, 06:32:57 PM
As I've stated many times, I am a libertarian and Gary has tremendous shortcomings from my perspective. Given the poor choices in this election season, I am considering voting for Gary even with his many flaws. However, this particular clip doesn't bother me all that much.
Most libertarians believe in generally free immigration.
No they don't, the NEW LIBertarian does, the older Libertarian does not, as per the original movements edict written in the 70s.
QuoteSome other libertarians take the Milton Freedman approach and believe that as long as we have a welfare state, we cannot have free immigration. But all libertarians believe that, in a libertarian society with no State or a very minimal State, there will be no prohibitions on the free movement of people. You have the right to tell anyone you want to stay off your property, but you don't have the right to prohibit people from moving onto other peoples property if they are invited.
Who made you spokesman for the movement? Most Libertarians I know believe in knowing who is entering the country and demand all entrants go through a screening process, kind of like, you know, the laws currently on the books and not being enforced?
QuoteI don't think Gary is trying to be PC here. Knowing him like I do, he genuinely believes in free immigration and that immigrants benefit our society far more than they hurt our society. The interviewer in this clip is absolutely correct that the act of crossing the border without going through the State-mandated proper channels is technically illegal.
Tape speaks for itself.
QuoteThis is just a semantic disagreement over which term you prefer. For a libertarian, whether something is "legal" or "illegal" according to some arbitrary edict by the State is not really relevant to the moral judgment we render upon peoples actions.
Oh, I see, like the difference in pedophile, or "age is arbitrarily relative". :rolleyes:
QuoteConservatives prefer the term "illegal" because it implies we should render a negative moral judgment on a person simply for the fact that they refused to abide by the State's legislation and bureaucratic processes.
No, you do not speak for Conservatives either, that is your opinion. Conservatives I know recognize laws, like when you want to borrow money, you have to prove who you are, and if you cross the border as an illegal, haven't proven your worth or ability self sustenance, one can safely assume you are more than likely up to no good.
You know, like every other free nation on the planet demands.
QuoteThe Welfare State is another matter entirely. I would be supportive of a policy whereby new immigrants are restricted from applying for social welfare programs for an indefinite period, or for five years, ten years or whatever is feasible. In fact, I'd be supportive of repealing the Welfare State for American citizens as well. But that is a separate issue to whether we should permit the blockading of our borders and interfering with the free movement of people.
What is your motivation for wanting to restrict immigration? From my perspective, you can have any damn opinion about Mexicans or Muslims or any other group you wish. You can not invite them onto your property and you can choose not to interact with them. But you should not have the right to forcefully prevent the movement of people on property that you don't own or interfere with freedom of association.
So you're fine with flooding the nation with a bunch of unscreened refugees? Or do you believe there should be a limit?
QuoteAnother thing that I find frustrating is when you insinuate that a libertarian, whether it's Gary Johnson, myself or anyone else, is really a LIBERAL in disguise when the argument being presented is in fact completely consistent with libertarian principles. What you are really doing is trying to scare conservatives away from considering libertarianism by using a label that is incendiary to a conservative audience. It is dishonest.
No, you'd be wrong, Gary is a RINO/lib, which is why he chose another party, even the Pubs wanted nothing to do with the guy.
You don't lose as a lib, then suddenly become a Libertarian, if anything, the transition is Conservative to Libertarian, or vice versa.
QuoteFavoring open borders and free immigration is something that most libertarians support. Some liberals may support the same thing, but they support it for very different reasons.
As I stated earlier, that belief rests with new members of the movement, and most within the last decade.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 08, 2016, 06:32:57 PM
As I've stated many times, I am a libertarian and Gary has tremendous shortcomings from my perspective. Given the poor choices in this election season, I am considering voting for Gary even with his many flaws. However, this particular clip doesn't bother me all that much.
Most libertarians believe in generally free immigration. Some other libertarians take the Milton Freedman approach and believe that as long as we have a welfare state, we cannot have free immigration. But all libertarians believe that, in a libertarian society with no State or a very minimal State, there will be no prohibitions on the free movement of people. You have the right to tell anyone you want to stay off your property, but you don't have the right to prohibit people from moving onto other peoples property if they are invited.
I don't think Gary is trying to be PC here. Knowing him like I do, he genuinely believes in free immigration and that immigrants benefit our society far more than they hurt our society. The interviewer in this clip is absolutely correct that the act of crossing the border without going through the State-mandated proper channels is technically illegal.
This is just a semantic disagreement over which term you prefer. For a libertarian, whether something is "legal" or "illegal" according to some arbitrary edict by the State is not really relevant to the moral judgment we render upon peoples actions.
Conservatives prefer the term "illegal" because it implies we should render a negative moral judgment on a person simply for the fact that they refused to abide by the State's legislation and bureaucratic processes.
The Welfare State is another matter entirely. I would be supportive of a policy whereby new immigrants are restricted from applying for social welfare programs for an indefinite period, or for five years, ten years or whatever is feasible. In fact, I'd be supportive of repealing the Welfare State for American citizens as well. But that is a separate issue to whether we should permit the blockading of our borders and interfering with the free movement of people.
What is your motivation for wanting to restrict immigration? From my perspective, you can have any damn opinion about Mexicans or Muslims or any other group you wish. You can not invite them onto your property and you can choose not to interact with them. But you should not have the right to forcefully prevent the movement of people on property that you don't own or interfere with freedom of association.
Another thing that I find frustrating is when you insinuate that a libertarian, whether it's Gary Johnson, myself or anyone else, is really a LIBERAL in disguise when the argument being presented is in fact completely consistent with libertarian principles. What you are really doing is trying to scare conservatives away from considering libertarianism by using a label that is incendiary to a conservative audience. It is dishonest.
Favoring open borders and free immigration is something that most libertarians support. Some liberals may support the same thing, but they support it for very different reasons.
May all
your neighbors be illegal criminal, Mexicans or Muslims for 10 miles around.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2016, 07:02:01 PM
No they don't, the NEW LIBertarian does, the older Libertarian does not, as per the original movements edict written in the 70s.
Who made you spokesman for the movement? Most Libertarians I know believe in knowing who is entering the country and demand all entrants go through a screening process, kind of like, you know, the laws currently on the books and not being enforced?
Tape speaks for itself.
Oh, I see, like the difference in pedophile, or "age is arbitrarily relative". :rolleyes:
No, you do not speak for Conservatives either, that is your opinion. Conservatives I know recognize laws, like when you want to borrow money, you have to prove who you are, and if you cross the border as an illegal, haven't proven your worth or ability self sustenance, one can safely assume you are more than likely up to no good.
You know, like every other free nation on the planet demands.
So you're fine with flooding the nation with a bunch of unscreened refugees? Or do you believe there should be a limit?
No, you'd be wrong, Gary is a RINO/lib, which is why he chose another party, even the Pubs wanted nothing to do with the guy.
You don't lose as a lib, then suddenly become a Libertarian, if anything, the transition is Conservative to Libertarian, or vice versa.
As I stated earlier, that belief rests with new members of the movement, and most within the last decade.
Gary sounds just like Trump. If you can not get a foot hold then change party's. Will Gary become a Dem next time around. :popcorn:
Quote from: walkstall on September 08, 2016, 07:48:27 PM
May all your neighbors be illegal criminal, Mexicans or Muslims for 10 miles around.
Move to Detroit. :biggrin:
Kirk Baird is a cartoonist at the Toledo Blade in Ohio.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crtsdfqqsbkdqbffxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fbsbfrdbrrxbskdqqwdgxrttwtwrtw%2F1%2F1595431%2F13669087%2FMaumeeD17-vi.jpg&hash=b585804fc8374c897de56bc5d22392a878abaa1c)
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2016, 07:02:01 PM
No they don't, the NEW LIBertarian does, the older Libertarian does not, as per the original movements edict written in the 70s.
Who made you spokesman for the movement? Most Libertarians I know believe in knowing who is entering the country and demand all entrants go through a screening process, kind of like, you know, the laws currently on the books and not being enforced?
Tape speaks for itself.
Oh, I see, like the difference in pedophile, or "age is arbitrarily relative". :rolleyes:
No, you do not speak for Conservatives either, that is your opinion. Conservatives I know recognize laws, like when you want to borrow money, you have to prove who you are, and if you cross the border as an illegal, haven't proven your worth or ability self sustenance, one can safely assume you are more than likely up to no good.
You know, like every other free nation on the planet demands.
So you're fine with flooding the nation with a bunch of unscreened refugees? Or do you believe there should be a limit?
No, you'd be wrong, Gary is a RINO/lib, which is why he chose another party, even the Pubs wanted nothing to do with the guy.
You don't lose as a lib, then suddenly become a Libertarian, if anything, the transition is Conservative to Libertarian, or vice versa.
As I stated earlier, that belief rests with new members of the movement, and most within the last decade.
As a libertarian, I think I know a bit more about libertarianism than you. It is true that there are libertarians who support restrictions on immigration. Immigration is one area where there is disagreement among libertarians. However, those who support current restrictions on immigration do so because they believe that the current welfare state would render new immigrants as aggressors against private property as opposed to producers who add to the national wealth.
Libertarians are primarily concerned with opposing aggression against person or property. If there are employers who want to hire low skilled foreign laborers and foreign laborers who want to be employed by these companies, who are you or anyone else to interfere with this free exchange?
As long as we have a State, I concede that we should provide basic background checks, health inspections and so forth for new immigrants. I don't believe that we should have a State as I've stated before.
I don't believe that we should look down upon immigrants who are doing their best to feed their families and they cannot afford to abide by the unnecessarily bureaucratic and convoluted legal immigration process.
By my estimation, most libertarians are more in favor of free immigration as opposed to closed borders, even given the presence of the welfare State. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are free to present it.
Quote from: walkstall on September 08, 2016, 07:48:27 PM
May all your neighbors be illegal criminal, Mexicans or Muslims for 10 miles around.
I have no problem with Mexican or Muslim neighbors. In fact, the nice gentleman who lives across the street from me is a Muslim and he is one of the nicest people I've met.
Nobody is in favor of the free immigration of violent criminals. In either a Statist society or a libertarian society, communities would want to prohibit violent and dangerous people from entering. This does not describe most immigrants.
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2016, 09:42:18 PM
Kirk Baird is a cartoonist at the Toledo Blade in Ohio.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crtsdfqqsbkdqbffxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fbsbfrdbrrxbskdqqwdgxrttwtwrtw%2F1%2F1595431%2F13669087%2FMaumeeD17-vi.jpg&hash=b585804fc8374c897de56bc5d22392a878abaa1c)
That cartoon accurately describes my assessment of Gary Johnson. He is not an impressive person by any standards. He is not well-read on libertarian philosophy or Austrian economics. Yet, he is not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
The most impressive libertarian politician in my lifetime has been Ron Paul. I have some disagreements with him, but he is so good and so informed on so many important issues that whatever disagreements I have with him are relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.
I can't say the same about Gary Johnson. He is much better than Hillary and Donald but that is a low bar. If I vote for him, it will be a vote in favor of the Libertarian Party and against the two party duopoly instead of a personal endorsement of Gary and everything he has ever said.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 09, 2016, 01:40:43 AM
I have no problem with Mexican or Muslim neighbors. In fact, the nice gentleman who lives across the street from me is a Muslim and he is one of the nicest people I've met.
Nobody is in favor of the free immigration of violent criminals. In either a Statist society or a libertarian society, communities would want to prohibit violent and dangerous people from entering. This does not describe most immigrants.
Wow!! One :lol:
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 09, 2016, 01:46:31 AM
That cartoon accurately describes my assessment of Gary Johnson. He is not an impressive person by any standards. He is not well-read on libertarian philosophy or Austrian economics. Yet, he is not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
The most impressive libertarian politician in my lifetime has been Ron Paul. I have some disagreements with him, but he is so good and so informed on so many important issues that whatever disagreements I have with him are relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.
I can't say the same about Gary Johnson. He is much better than Hillary and Donald but that is a low bar. If I vote for him, it will be a vote in favor of the Libertarian Party and against the two party duopoly instead of a personal endorsement of Gary and everything he has ever said.
Wow again. So you will hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil for the party. So you think these Wet Backs or Muslim will Follow the laws (rules) of the libertarians?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 09, 2016, 01:46:31 AM
That cartoon accurately describes my assessment of Gary Johnson.
And you drank the Un-Cola when you were young. Got it. Rebel without a cause.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 09, 2016, 01:37:35 AM
As a libertarian, I think I know a bit more about libertarianism than you.
As an adult, I say you're wrong. I remember when the movement was born, I followed it for years, even became a Libertarian (once the Hippies were purged) for a time back when the first Bush infested the GOP.
QuoteIt is true that there are libertarians who support restrictions on immigration. Immigration is one area where there is disagreement among libertarians. However, those who support current restrictions on immigration do so because they believe that the current welfare state would render new immigrants as aggressors against private property as opposed to producers who add to the national wealth.
That seriously makes no sense at all. Are legal immigrants not allowed to own property?
QuoteLibertarians are primarily concerned with opposing aggression against person or property. If there are employers who want to hire low skilled foreign laborers and foreign laborers who want to be employed by these companies, who are you or anyone else to interfere with this free exchange?
Why are you advocating for the Fed to use it's power to stifle States Rights? See the problem here? You want to use big govt to trample the Rights of individual States over an emotional issue.
Maybe you should think about that....
QuoteAs long as we have a State, I concede that we should provide basic background checks, health inspections and so forth for new immigrants. I don't believe that we should have a State as I've stated before.
I see, so as long as you have no say in immigration law, you accept them, but if you had your way, anarchy would be the rule?
QuoteI don't believe that we should look down upon immigrants who are doing their best to feed their families and they cannot afford to abide by the unnecessarily bureaucratic and convoluted legal immigration process.
So it's fine that Mexico and Canada believe in the rule of law and enforce their immigration standards, but the US should not. Got it.
QuoteBy my estimation, most libertarians are more in favor of free immigration as opposed to closed borders, even given the presence of the welfare State. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are free to present it.
Why should I? You have yet to prove your ludicrous assertions, so go ahead, show the stats.
Quote from: quiller on September 09, 2016, 06:11:09 AM
And you drank the Un-Cola when you were young. Got it. Rebel without a cause.
Un-Cola? He wasn't even born yet.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2016, 10:19:14 AM
Un-Cola? He wasn't even born yet.
His generation did not originate teenage rebellion and angst.
Quote from: quiller on September 09, 2016, 02:47:55 PM
His generation did not originate teenage rebellion and angst.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Time memoriam....
Every Libertarian I've known who has run for public office has practically nothing in common, other than a handful of non-political things.
a. They're all trying really hard to be "cool", "Hip" and "outside the mainstream" - and failing. (freaks)
b. They NEVER seek broad appeal, instead they seem to think the "farther out there" they are, the better.
c. They don't want to be taken SERIOUSLY, because if they ever did get the WH, they wouldn't have a clue how Government functions, or that the bathroom's primary purpose is not a place to get high or laid.
Doesn't Gary look adorable when he's coming down off a high and loses his temper? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Hoofer on September 09, 2016, 05:09:22 PM
Every Libertarian I've known who has run for public office has practically nothing in common, other than a handful of non-political things.
a. They're all trying really hard to be "cool", "Hip" and "outside the mainstream" - and failing. (freaks)
b. They NEVER seek broad appeal, instead they seem to think the "farther out there" they are, the better.
c. They don't want to be taken SERIOUSLY, because if they ever did get the WH, they wouldn't have a clue how Government functions, or that the bathroom's primary purpose is not a place to get high or laid.
Doesn't Gary look adorable when he's coming down off a high and loses his temper? :lol: :lol: :lol:
The original founders of the movement came from the generation that thought anyone over 30 was the enemy.
These were the rejects of the hippie gen, the nerds if you will, the ones that didn't fit in any group, like a round peg in a square hole.
And what do we see happening today? Another generation without a party, in this case a bunch of idealistic kids clinging to the belief that anarchy is manageable, with no clue of how the world works beyond American borders.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 09, 2016, 01:40:43 AM
I have no problem with Mexican or Muslim neighbors. In fact, the nice gentleman who lives across the street from me is a Muslim and he is one of the nicest people I've met.
Nobody is in favor of the free immigration of violent criminals. In either a Statist society or a libertarian society, communities would want to prohibit violent and dangerous people from entering. This does not describe most immigrants.
Many professional criminals are some of the nicest most politest people you would ever meet....many live in nice neighborhoods, have a nice wife, well behaved kids, go to church etc. You'd never know what stone cold killers they really are. All part of their disguise. Read my sig line....
Quote from: walkstall on September 09, 2016, 03:00:13 AM
Wow again. So you will hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil for the party. So you think these Wet Backs or Muslim will Follow the laws (rules) of the libertarians?
You really have no compunction about fully revealing your bigotry, do you? And I don't use that term lightly. As a libertarian, I've seen the Left accuse good people of racism when any clear-thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort. And I've generally gone out of my way to defend the Right against unjust charges of racism, since the accusation is so often dishonestly applied.
However, referring to Mexicans as "wet backs" or speaking about Muslims in the derogatory terms ya'll obviously feel comfortable doing can only be described as ignorant bigotry.
Frankly, as distasteful as it might be, I'm not overly concerned about your private xenophobic thoughts. I am concerned when you use or threaten to use the violence of the State to enforce your views on others. You have no just right to prevent the free movement of people.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 11, 2016, 05:46:32 PM
You really have no compunction about fully revealing your bigotry, do you? And I don't use that term lightly. As a libertarian, I've seen the Left accuse good people of racism when any clear-thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort. And I've generally gone out of my way to defend the Right against unjust charges of racism, since the accusation is so often dishonestly applied.
However, referring to Mexicans as "wet backs" or speaking about Muslims in the derogatory terms ya'll obviously feel comfortable doing can only be described as ignorant bigotry.
Frankly, as distasteful as it might be, I'm not overly concerned about your private xenophobic thoughts. I am concerned when you use or threaten to use the violence of the State to enforce your views on others. You have no just right to prevent the free movement of people.
I 'am NOT PC like you. I call it as I see it. Your utopia will only last in your own mind. Until someone comes in and kicks your ass. In this day and age State force is not going to be your problem for utopia. All it will take is someone that is willing to walk up and take what you have. Trust me the line is well over 2 blocks long.
You come on my land, you best have a damn good reason why. I would like to see you walk across into Mexico at a border cross without a passport, then come back in even in this day and age. :lol:
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 11, 2016, 05:46:32 PM
However, referring to Mexicans as "wet backs" or speaking about Muslims in the derogatory terms ya'll obviously feel comfortable doing can only be described as ignorant bigotry.
ALL ABOARD!!!!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crtsfqkkgfrtwtsdxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frkdqsbtsqxgrgwswsssxsbqgdbfkr%2F1%2F1595431%2F13885637%2Fwetback_welcome_wagonvi-vi.png&hash=5902717be690b927acafa98cb99e6df7597bda85)
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 11, 2016, 05:46:32 PM
You really have no compunction about fully revealing your bigotry, do you? And I don't use that term lightly. As a libertarian, I've seen the Left accuse good people of racism when any clear-thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort. And I've generally gone out of my way to defend the Right against unjust charges of racism, since the accusation is so often dishonestly applied.
However, referring to Mexicans as "wet backs" or speaking about Muslims in the derogatory terms ya'll obviously feel comfortable doing can only be described as ignorant bigotry.
Frankly, as distasteful as it might be, I'm not overly concerned about your private xenophobic thoughts. I am concerned when you use or threaten to use the violence of the State to enforce your views on others. You have no just right to prevent the free movement of people.
So you avoid my Reply #31 and go after what you consider low hanging fruit and call someone a racist because they spoke the truth?
None of what he said was derogatory in any way, Mexicans crossing the Rio Grands were given the term wet back because they had to swim to "ILLEGALLY" enter the US, Muscums will not follow our laws because their religion trump's our laws, so both statements were spot on.
But I'd like to address something else, your claim that you have:
Quote"As a libertarian, I've seen the Left accuse good people of racism when any clear-thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort. And I've generally gone out of my way to defend the Right against unjust charges of racism"
Libertarian is Right, you moronic LIB-ertarian! It's foolish libs like you that are destroying the Liberatrian movement.
The movement is nothing more than a stripped down version of Republicanism, the very thing TEA stands for, it's your ignorance of the movement and its core ideals that do it disservice, that keep libs like Johnson in power and keep the movement from getting more than 10% notice.
Now go back and address my reply or find another forum to shit your leftist bull on.
Why are these other candidates so pompous? Johnson and Kasich should run on the Super Awesome Condescension ticket.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2016, 05:54:55 PM
The original founders of the movement came from the generation that thought anyone over 30 was the enemy.
These were the rejects of the hippie gen, the nerds if you will, the ones that didn't fit in any group, like a round peg in a square hole.
And what do we see happening today? Another generation without a party, in this case a bunch of idealistic kids clinging to the belief that anarchy is manageable, with no clue of how the world works beyond American borders.
You're wrong about this. This is a gross caricature which I'll admit does reflect SOME libertarians but certainly not all.
The tradition of liberty dates back far further than the recent manifestation of libertarianism that emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The true intellectual heritage of the modern libertarian movement is the Enlightenment-Era classical liberals and individualist anarchists who emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries. Starting with John Locke and early economists such as Adam Smith, liberalism was a philosophy which recognized the concept of Natural Rights and strictly limited government, or the absence of government entirely. Important early thinkers included Lysander Spooner, Frederick Bastiat, and Benjamin Tucker, among many others.
Also important to the development of modern libertarian thought were the Austrian School of economics. Founded by Carl Menger in the middle of the 19th century, and subsequently developed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk and, most importantly, Ludvig von Mises who wrote vital and important denunciations of Socialism and Central Banking during the first half of the 20th century.
The most important libertarian figure of the second half of the 20th century was undoubtedly Murray Rothbard, who was Mises's most important student.
There was a strain of libertarianism that emerged in the late 1960s that comprised, essentially, "hippies of the Right". This is how Ayn Rand described them and, though I am no Randian, this caricature has merit.
But this hardly describes all, or even most, libertarians.
Libertarianism is a philosophy which is primarily concerned with the proper role of coercion in society. It is the belief that coercion is essentially only morally defensible as a means of self defense and that aggression, which is unprovoked force applied to peaceful people, is inherently unjust.
Different groups of libertarians attach very different social and cultural values to this view. Thus, there are very socially conservative libertarians and very socially liberal libertarians. There are fundamentalist Christian libertarians and radical atheist libertarians. There are libertarians who engage in "alternative" lifestyles such as libertine drug use and sexual conduct. There are others who follow very socially conservative habits and personally reject social liberalism and leftist viewpoints.
What all libertarians agree on is that they reject the use of aggression against others. And thus, all libertarians either support a VERY limited State (minarchy) or the total abolition of the State (anarchy).
In regards to immigration, what business is it of yours if someone moves onto property that you don't own as long as they don't harm anyone in the process? Libertarians believe in freedom of association. National boundaries are merely arbitrary lines drawn on a map by an illegitimate political authority. If there are employers in this country and workers in another country who want to associate with each other, then why should any third party have the ability to stop them from doing so?
Quote from: walkstall on September 11, 2016, 06:18:54 PM
I 'am NOT PC like you. I call it as I see it. Your utopia will only last in your own mind. Until someone comes in and kicks your ass. In this day and age State force is not going to be your problem for utopia. All it will take is someone that is willing to walk up and take what you have. Trust me the line is well over 2 blocks long.
You come on my land, you best have a damn good reason why. I would like to see you walk across into Mexico at a border cross without a passport, then come back in even in this day and age. :lol:
This is not about political correctness. If someone were to walk around using words like "nigger", "wet back" and "towel head", they would not be a crusader against political correctness, they would just be a crude racist.
If I were to say something that is absolutely true and supported by evidence, then that statement would not be racist. Facts are not racist. But your ignorant assertion that Muslims in the United States are more likely to be violent criminals is not supported by ANY evidence whatsoever. Ignorance is at the heart of bigotry.
You are making a gross generalization about Muslims that is not based on any facts whatsoever. And using a racial epithet such as "wet backs" is a clear give-away.
On the other hand, if you were to say that a disproportionate number of inner-city blacks happen to be involved in gangs as opposed to many other ethnic groups or that a higher number of black children are born without fathers than most other ethnic groups, this would not be racist because both statements happen to be true.
There is a clear difference. Being an overt racist is not a noble way to fight against political correctness.
Quote from: Solar on September 12, 2016, 08:29:30 AM
So you avoid my Reply #31 and go after what you consider low hanging fruit and call someone a racist because they spoke the truth?
None of what he said was derogatory in any way, Mexicans crossing the Rio Grands were given the term wet back because they had to swim to "ILLEGALLY" enter the US, Muscums will not follow our laws because their religion trump's our laws, so both statements were spot on.
But I'd like to address something else, your claim that you have:
Libertarian is Right, you moronic LIB-ertarian! It's foolish libs like you that are destroying the Liberatrian movement.
The movement is nothing more than a stripped down version of Republicanism, the very thing TEA stands for, it's your ignorance of the movement and its core ideals that do it disservice, that keep libs like Johnson in power and keep the movement from getting more than 10% notice.
Now go back and address my reply or find another forum to shit your leftist bull on.
Libertarianism is neither left nor right. I am perfectly happy to align myself with the most socially conservative and the most socially liberal people as long as they oppose the State and oppose the initiation of force against peaceful people.
Frankly, I think it's nothing more than a contemporary myth that libertarianism is "a stripped down version of Republicanism", as you describe it. It is a fallacy to think that libertarianism is some quirky off-shoot of the Right.
I think you and I would both agree that libertarianism is based upon the belief that government should either be limited to a few basic functions (defense of property and person, dispute adjudication, national defense) or that it should be abolished entirely to be replaced by the spontaneous order of a free market. If libertarianism is a naturally ally of the Right or of Republicanism, then it should stand to reason that the Right would have SOME success in rolling back Big Government, right?
Were is that success? Who was the "small government" Republican president in the last seventy years or so? Not Nixon. Not Reagan. Not either George Bush administration. What have Republican congresses ever done to concretely roll back the size of government?
The truth is the Republican governments have done as much as any Democrat to expand government and trample on the liberties of Americans.
Furthermore, Republicans have in the last half century or so, been the biggest champions of an expansive military empire, a buildup of Nuclear arms during the Cold War and an advocate for "American Exceptionalism" and an iron-clad "special relationship" with the nation of Israel that flies in the face of the admonition of the Founders to avoid "entangling alliances".
Randolph Borne correctly observed that "war is the health of the State", which means that supporting a large military and unnecessary wars does more than anything to expand government. As the great Robert Higgs correctly observed in his classic "Crisis and Leviathan", there is a "racket effect" whereby every "crisis" precipitated by government creates a great expansion in State power. After the crisis is over, the power may retract slightly, but never to the level it was before the crisis began. After a repeated series of crises, government power grows and grows.
War is the greatest pretext government could ever want to expand it's power.
I'd love to hear a rational explanation as to why libertarianism should be aligned with modern conservatism or the Republican Party given this inexcusable record.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 14, 2016, 11:08:42 PM
You're wrong about this.
No, I am not! I've been studying all movements since long before you were born. Just because you glommed onto what you consider to be the heart of a movement stolen by pissed off leftists, does not lend credence to your claims. In this case, the squeaky wheel gets the LSM mic, a small but vocal group of Millennial, but in no way anywhere near majority are attempting to hijack the movement.
QuoteThe tradition of liberty dates back far further than the recent manifestation of libertarianism that emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
So what, that in no way supports your bogus claims!
QuoteThe true intellectual heritage of the modern libertarian movement is the Enlightenment-Era classical liberals and individualist anarchists who emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries. Starting with John Locke and early economists such as Adam Smith, liberalism was a philosophy which recognized the concept of Natural Rights and strictly limited government, or the absence of government entirely. Important early thinkers included Lysander Spooner, Frederick Bastiat, and Benjamin Tucker, among many others.
Oh cut the bull shit, all party's can make the same claim.
QuoteAlso important to the development of modern libertarian thought were the Austrian School of economics. Founded by Carl Menger in the middle of the 19th century, and subsequently developed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk and, most importantly, Ludvig von Mises who wrote vital and important denunciations of Socialism and Central Banking during the first half of the 20th century.
The most important libertarian figure of the second half of the 20th century was undoubtedly Murray Rothbard, who was Mises's most important student.
More bull shit! Just because some cult follower stated it, does not make it true.
QuoteThere was a strain of libertarianism that emerged in the late 1960s that comprised, essentially, "hippies of the Right". This is how Ayn Rand described them and, though I am no Randian, this caricature has merit.
But this hardly describes all, or even most, libertarians.
This "Strain" as you call it, is the actual beginning of the current party and it's more recently bastardized platform.
Here, learn something!
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/here's-the-original-libertarian-platform-from-1972/msg310046/#msg310046
QuoteLibertarianism is a philosophy which is primarily concerned with the proper role of coercion in society. It is the belief that coercion is essentially only morally defensible as a means of self defense and that aggression, which is unprovoked force applied to peaceful people, is inherently unjust.
Different groups of libertarians attach very different social and cultural values to this view.
Which is exactly my point, many leftist groups are trying to change the party's original platform, (Enter Leftist Johnson)
QuoteThus, there are very socially conservative libertarians and very socially liberal libertarians.
Wrong again! There is no social component to the Libertarian movement, that was the beauty of the movement in the first place!
QuoteThere are fundamentalist Christian libertarians and radical atheist libertarians. There are libertarians who engage in "alternative" lifestyles such as libertine drug use and sexual conduct. There are others who follow very socially conservative habits and personally reject social liberalism and leftist viewpoints.
Once again you prove my point as to how the movement is being usurped by groups refusing to share the inclusiveness of the party platform.
QuoteWhat all libertarians agree on is that they reject the use of aggression against others. And thus, all libertarians either support a VERY limited State (minarchy) or the total abolition of the State (anarchy).
With the exception of self defense and property rights.
QuoteIn regards to immigration, what business is it of yours if someone moves onto property that you don't own as long as they don't harm anyone in the process? Libertarians believe in freedom of association. National boundaries are merely arbitrary lines drawn on a map by an illegitimate political authority. If there are employers in this country and workers in another country who want to associate with each other, then why should any third party have the ability to stop them from doing so?
"In regards to immigration, what business is it of yours" what individual States deem illegal?
You see, as I pointed out earlier, you claim out of one side of your ass that govt needs to stand aside and respect individual rights, while you talk out the otherside of your ass claiming govt should force individuals to accept illegals as neighbors.
It's this bastardization of the platform that I am totally against and why I am exposing your hypocrisy as a lib!
Solar, you are absolutely right. Thanks for the link, good refresher to contrast today with what once was a pretty good platform.
Quote from: Hoofer on September 15, 2016, 11:26:26 AM
Solar, you are absolutely right. Thanks for the link, good refresher to contrast today with what once was a pretty good platform.
I think most platforms started out with good intentions, not all. Then along came the free loader and corrupt politicians takeover.
Quote from: Hoofer on September 15, 2016, 11:26:26 AM
Solar, you are absolutely right. Thanks for the link, good refresher to contrast today with what once was a pretty good platform.
Exactly! I'm sure you remember the day the movement started, I know I do, and I also remember the mood of the country at the time in context to their pronouncement. It was viewed as destructive at the time because Nam had just ended and a bunch of hippies were without a cause. Neither the Dims or GOP hated the country, both had Conservatives at the heart of the party's.
It was a time when you could tell by an individuals attire where they stood politically, and I distinctly remember looking at them and thinking they were nothing more than a bunch of pissed off idealistic reformed hippies.
I was right in hindsight, but with history in the reflective light of today, had this same movement started within the last few years as its platform stood in the 70s? We might all be voting with a big (L) on the ticket and telling the GOP to take a leap, instead, we're Hell bent on stealing the GOP from the leftists.
But as long as libs are determined to overtake and rewrite the platform, there is no way in Hell it'll ever garner more than 12% of the vote.
Well.... maybe it's time we'll considered Gary Johnson a "real" candidate, and started listing a few questions that might help highlight some talking points for the MSM.
a. Do you practice concealed carry WP? (water pipe).
b. When you say you're a "Jobs President" - is that "work or papers, or... ?
c. Twinkies or Pretzels with a beer chaser?
d. Denny's or IHOP for 2 am breakfast after partying?
e. Ever get so high it triggered an LSD flashback?
f. Are you in favor of subsidizing Big Dope, or Independent growers?
g. Would you be in favor of FDA quality assurance to guarantee Oregano stays 'out-of-the-stash'?
h. I've heard several of your commercials on Radio recently, like with the screaming guitars, were you high when you picked out the music?
i. Part of the New Deal was 40 acres, a mule and a chicken in every pot. Would a Johnson New Deal allow something along the lines of 40 ounces per mule of pot from Havana?
Quote from: Hoofer on September 15, 2016, 01:39:24 PM
Well.... maybe it's time we'll considered Gary Johnson a "real" candidate, and started listing a few questions that might help highlight some talking points for the MSM.
a. Do you practice concealed carry WP? (water pipe).
b. When you say you're a "Jobs President" - is that "work or papers, or... ?
c. Twinkies or Pretzels with a beer chaser?
d. Denny's or IHOP for 2 am breakfast after partying?
e. Ever get so high it triggered an LSD flashback?
f. Are you in favor of subsidizing Big Dope, or Independent growers?
g. Would you be in favor of FDA quality assurance to guarantee Oregano stays 'out-of-the-stash'?
h. I've heard several of your commercials on Radio recently, like with the screaming guitars, were you high when you picked out the music?
i. Part of the New Deal was 40 acres, a mule and a chicken in every pot. Would a Johnson New Deal allow something along the lines of 40 ounces per mule of pot from Havana?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Give that man a Kewpie doll!
As I recall, the Libertarian movement was spawned by elements of the SDS which didn't want to get that radical....the Anti war movement....some VVAW (Viet Nam Veterans against the War (Kerry's outfit) and your run of the mill Vermont sytle Liberals.
One thing these people had in common is their absolute hatred of war, the military, the Police and ANY type of Authority
Problem is that translates into a weak military that signals other nations and of course terrorists, like blood in the water attracts sharks.
It's real hard to reason with these types who are convinced that all we have to do is disarm, withdraw from everywhere and scale down the military, do away with half of the Cops in the US and everything will just be cool.
Quote from: Solar on September 15, 2016, 10:56:40 AM
No, I am not! I've been studying all movements since long before you were born. Just because you glommed onto what you consider to be the heart of a movement stolen by pissed off leftists, does not lend credence to your claims. In this case, the squeaky wheel gets the LSM mic, a small but vocal group of Millennial, but in no way anywhere near majority are attempting to hijack the movement.
So what, that in no way supports your bogus claims!
Oh cut the bull shit, all party's can make the same claim.
More bull shit! Just because some cult follower stated it, does not make it true.
This "Strain" as you call it, is the actual beginning of the current party and it's more recently bastardized platform.
Here, learn something!
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/here's-the-original-libertarian-platform-from-1972/msg310046/#msg310046
Which is exactly my point, many leftist groups are trying to change the party's original platform, (Enter Leftist Johnson)
Wrong again! There is no social component to the Libertarian movement, that was the beauty of the movement in the first place!
Once again you prove my point as to how the movement is being usurped by groups refusing to share the inclusiveness of the party platform.
With the exception of self defense and property rights.
"In regards to immigration, what business is it of yours" what individual States deem illegal?
You see, as I pointed out earlier, you claim out of one side of your ass that govt needs to stand aside and respect individual rights, while you talk out the otherside of your ass claiming govt should force individuals to accept illegals as neighbors.
It's this bastardization of the platform that I am totally against and why I am exposing your hypocrisy as a lib!
Okay, we are talking past each other a bit. I've read the original Libertarian Party platform and I agree with nearly all of it, with the exception that I am a bit more radical as an anarchist. Like Ron Paul, I consider myself to be a Misesian, Rothbardian libertarian. In fact, Murray Rothbard himself was instrumental in the creation of the Libertarian Party and basically wrote much of their original platform.
I also don't want to give the impression that I'm a Gary Johnson fan or that I think he's a good libertarian. The only reason I'd vote for him is that he is the best out of a bunch of bad choices. There's no way in hell I'd ever vote for Donald or Hillary.
But the trouble with Gary is not that he supports generally free immigration, supports gay marriage and smokes marijuana. The problem is that he is a buffoon who doesn't understand the important principles that underpin libertarianism and so the positions he espouses seem arbitrary and ad hoc. He seems like a somewhat fiscally conservative Republican who happens to hold a handful of Leftist viewpoints and he equates this with being a libertarian.
When I said that there are socially conservative and socially liberal libertarians, I meant that people can have any views they want on social, religious and personal conduct and be consistent with libertarian principles. I agree that libertarianism, in and of itself, does not endorse or reject any personal private conduct.
But this thread is about Johnson and his position on immigration. I contend that the proper libertarian position is to favor the free movement of people as long as they don't trespass on private property against the wishes of the property owners. Conservatives don't "own" the entire United States of America. Building a wall, deporting millions of people, hiring more border patrol and imposing bureaucratic and cumbersome barriers to free travel is not even close to what libertarianism is about.
I'm not saying all of you support all of those positions, but some of you have suggested that you have some sort of right to prevent a Mexican or a Muslim from moving into your neighborhood. Unless you have a contractual agreement, a homeowners alliance or other pre-established precedent you don't have any right to prevent your neighbors from either selling or renting their property to whoever they see fit.
Furthermore, if you all are so keen on the original Libertarian Party platform, how does that comport with your views on military and foreign policy?
Quote from: Solar on September 15, 2016, 12:03:01 PM
Exactly! I'm sure you remember the day the movement started, I know I do, and I also remember the mood of the country at the time in context to their pronouncement. It was viewed as destructive at the time because Nam had just ended and a bunch of hippies were without a cause. Neither the Dims or GOP hated the country, both had Conservatives at the heart of the party's.
It was a time when you could tell by an individuals attire where they stood politically, and I distinctly remember looking at them and thinking they were nothing more than a bunch of pissed off idealistic reformed hippies.
I was right in hindsight, but with history in the reflective light of today, had this same movement started within the last few years as its platform stood in the 70s? We might all be voting with a big (L) on the ticket and telling the GOP to take a leap, instead, we're Hell bent on stealing the GOP from the leftists.
But as long as libs are determined to overtake and rewrite the platform, there is no way in Hell it'll ever garner more than 12% of the vote.
Let me get this straight. You're reject libertarianism because you think a bunch of hippies started the movement?
I don't blame you if you don't want to support Johnson. Lots of libertarians oppose him. There have always been factions within the Libertarian movement that argue and fight with each other. There are indeed Left-libertarians who try to bring on board "social justice warrior" baggage, political correctness and other Leftist nonsense. But there are a great many, probably still the majority, of libertarians who don't fall for this.
You can choose to be a libertarian without necessarily supporting the Libertarian Party. But I'd argue that the Libertarian Party has actually fielded some pretty excellent presidential candidates in recent memory. By nominating Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party essentially chose to compromise on it's principles in order to gain mainstream attention. Nominating two former governors generates a superficial air of legitimacy. So they made a mistake this time.
Here are the recent Libertarian Party nominees who were either solid on libertarian principles or excellent:
1988 - Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has done more for the libertarian movement over the past thirty or forty years than anyone alive today. He is certainly an excellent libertarian.
1996 and 2000 - Harry Browne
Harry Browne was one of the most impressive Libertarian Party presidential candidates in the history of the party. He was completely solid on libertarian principles and he was certainly no "leftist".
2004 - Michael Badnarik
I'd place Michael in the "solid" category as opposed to the "excellent" category that I place Harry Browne and Ron Paul. Nevertheless, Wikipedia describes him like this:
Badnarik's political philosophy emphasizes individual liberty, personal responsibility, and strict adherence to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. All of his positions arise from this foundation. In economics, Badnarik believes in laissez-faire capitalism, a system in which the only function of the government is the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud. He therefore opposes institutions such as welfare and business regulation.This hardly differs from the Libertarian Party platform you linked to, right? In fact, I don't think the stated platform of the Libertarian Party has changed much at all over the years. Various candidates have, at various times, strayed from that platform in their public pronouncements.
In fact, in 2008, the Libertarian Party foolishly nominated Bob Barr who, like Johnson, is not really a libertarian. In fact, I'd wager Barr is less of a libertarian than Johnson is. But Barr was really a Republican and on the
right. So this recent nomination flies in the face of your claims that the Libertarian Party is overrun by Leftists.
Hippies have been involved in the Libertarian Party and continue to be. So what? Being counter-culture or a "hippie" does not run counter to libertarian principles, so what's the problem?
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 15, 2016, 05:59:45 PM
As I recall, the Libertarian movement was spawned by elements of the SDS which didn't want to get that radical....the Anti war movement....some VVAW (Viet Nam Veterans against the War (Kerry's outfit) and your run of the mill Vermont sytle Liberals.
One thing these people had in common is their absolute hatred of war, the military, the Police and ANY type of Authority
Problem is that translates into a weak military that signals other nations and of course terrorists, like blood in the water attracts sharks.
It's real hard to reason with these types who are convinced that all we have to do is disarm, withdraw from everywhere and scale down the military, do away with half of the Cops in the US and everything will just be cool.
Have you ever heard of Ludvig von Mises? He was the most important Austrian School economist of the 20th century. He wrote mainly between 1910 and 1960 and died in 1972 in his 90s. He opposed central banking and carried on the Classical Liberal tradition as much of the world turned towards Socialism in the early 20th century. He wrote in favor of the free market and explained how central banks artificially setting the interest rate distorts the economy and creates the business cycle. He favored a Gold Standard.
He didn't officially create the libertarian movement because that word didn't even exist in his heyday. He was known as a "liberal" and referred to himself as such. The true libertarian heritage is not some disgruntled hippies in the 1960s, but rather the classical liberals and individualist anarchists of the 19th century. Although Mises was not an anarchist, he kept alive the liberal tradition as the world devolved into socialism. The American Libertarian movement was spawned largely because of his work and influence. Mises's most important student, Murray Rothbard, essentially created the libertarian movement through his writings. He was a founder of the Libertarian Party and wrote dozens of books espousing it's principles including "For a New Liberty" and "The Ethics of Liberty".
What Libertarians are opposed to is the State. They are opposed to the initiation of force. If "authority" is voluntarily consented to, there is no problem with it. The trouble is that State authority is not voluntarily consented to. Every Libertarian should be opposed to war, and be opposed to most of the things military and police do if they follow this principle.
Having a military that is primarily concerned with having the capability for defense from any actual national security threats would logically mean that we'd cut our military spending by many times.
We could EASILY cut 50-60% of Defense spending, close down all foreign bases and be better able to respond to any national security threats than we currently are with a bloated, bureaucratic and insane foreign policy.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 15, 2016, 11:02:24 PM
What Libertarians are opposed to is the State. They are opposed to the initiation of force. If "authority" is voluntarily consented to, there is no problem with it.
Having a military that is primarily concerned with having the capability for defense from any actual national security threats would logically mean that we'd cut our military spending by many times.
Two points.
First let me preface the issue of submission to authority with what I've heard from Libertarians that goes something like this. If two parties are in conflict, say a dispute where one rendered services and was not paid by the other party, rather than involving police to arrest for criminal fraud etc they should work it out through an ombudsman, the offending party would be presumably subpeoned and report to a civil court to have the case heard, then presumably fined or ordered restitution.
Now here is the problem I have with that, being a student of Human nature.
First I tell you to fuck yourself with your subpeonea, beat the living dog shit out of anyone trying to serve me and tell the judge i'll blow a tunnel through his head if he decides against me. Then for good measure I kill you for even daring to make a beef against me. I do these terrible things because there is no one in authority to FORCE me to comply with the law.
If all submission to authority is VOLUNTARY, it only works in a society where people have a sense of honor, community and justice, in other words a society of Mr Rodgers neighborhood.
MAN IS ANYTHING BUT.....the Libertarian ideal does not conform to human nature not in the area of interpersonal conflict vis a vis rule of law. The State must have it's agents enforce laws and KEEP THE PEACE, because people are generally incapable of doing this on their own.
What you are indeed fostering is anarchy and in ANARCHAL SITUATION's THE STRONGEST MOST VIOLENT PEOPLE RULE....having seen this up close and personal in several foreign third world countries I know what I'm talking about trust me.
Second your statement about the Military cutting the budget perhaps by 50% and still be able to respond or adequately meet any national security threat seems rather mutually exclusive. In today's world our enemies are growing stronger and increasing their weaponry, aggressiveness and technology....to me this is just pure foolishness or likely wishful thinking.
What qualifies you to make such statement? How would you know what cutting the defense budget would do in regard to our readiness to meet hostile threats? Show me how you arrived at these conclusions based on what or whom?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 15, 2016, 10:43:21 PM
Let me get this straight. You're reject libertarianism because you think a bunch of hippies started the movement?
I don't blame you if you don't want to support Johnson. Lots of libertarians oppose him. There have always been factions within the Libertarian movement that argue and fight with each other. There are indeed Left-libertarians who try to bring on board "social justice warrior" baggage, political correctness and other Leftist nonsense. But there are a great many, probably still the majority, of libertarians who don't fall for this.
You can choose to be a libertarian without necessarily supporting the Libertarian Party. But I'd argue that the Libertarian Party has actually fielded some pretty excellent presidential candidates in recent memory. By nominating Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party essentially chose to compromise on it's principles in order to gain mainstream attention. Nominating two former governors generates a superficial air of legitimacy. So they made a mistake this time.
Here are the recent Libertarian Party nominees who were either solid on libertarian principles or excellent:
1988 - Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has done more for the libertarian movement over the past thirty or forty years than anyone alive today. He is certainly an excellent libertarian.
1996 and 2000 - Harry Browne
Harry Browne was one of the most impressive Libertarian Party presidential candidates in the history of the party. He was completely solid on libertarian principles and he was certainly no "leftist".
2004 - Michael Badnarik
I'd place Michael in the "solid" category as opposed to the "excellent" category that I place Harry Browne and Ron Paul. Nevertheless, Wikipedia describes him like this:
Badnarik's political philosophy emphasizes individual liberty, personal responsibility, and strict adherence to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. All of his positions arise from this foundation. In economics, Badnarik believes in laissez-faire capitalism, a system in which the only function of the government is the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud. He therefore opposes institutions such as welfare and business regulation.
This hardly differs from the Libertarian Party platform you linked to, right? In fact, I don't think the stated platform of the Libertarian Party has changed much at all over the years. Various candidates have, at various times, strayed from that platform in their public pronouncements.
In fact, in 2008, the Libertarian Party foolishly nominated Bob Barr who, like Johnson, is not really a libertarian. In fact, I'd wager Barr is less of a libertarian than Johnson is. But Barr was really a Republican and on the right. So this recent nomination flies in the face of your claims that the Libertarian Party is overrun by Leftists.
Hippies have been involved in the Libertarian Party and continue to be. So what? Being counter-culture or a "hippie" does not run counter to libertarian principles, so what's the problem?
You are one seriously obtuse individual!
My point was, and if you had any historical reference, which you do not, you'd have realized the early 70s were nothing like today, where the two party system is now leftist, but still had America's best interests at heart back then.
It was for this reason the Libertarian party was viewed more as divisive than anything, and if you even had a clue what the hippie movement was all about, you'd know that it was created by Marxists with one goal, creating distrust and division in AMERICA.
"Anyone over 30 was the enemy", and no, that was not just some harmless saying, it was an ax strike between patriarchy and the next generation, add in the Libertarian movement to the equation and one can easily surmise what was driving the movement.
However, that does not detract from it's Founding principles which I posted, but with an understanding of the historical connection to the times and the movement itself, it's safe to assume distrust in its agenda, especially considering the age of those pushing the idealist program and the division between the generations at the time.
Yes, the generation gap was an impediment at the time, and if you had been exposed to the era, you'd see just how much damage the Marxists did to the Baby Boomer generation, and why we despise anything tied to the left.
You yourself even posted a brief timeline of the party's decay to the left with it's short history of candidates.
This is the point I'm trying to make, the movements platform was never meant to be an anarchist movement, but that's the direction the Millennial want to take it because they despise both party's, they think they can somehow magically remove govt from the picture and we'll all live in Utopia.
If the left had not done as much damage to the nation as it has, and had the nation rejected the policies of Marxists, the libertarian party might have take a more legitimate place in politics, but moving it left was no accident. The GOP needed it to be an incompetent force, hence Johnson, and the Marxist Dims need it to go away because it's syphoning off their base with it's anti govt approach.
In other words, anyone that supports its leftist drift, is nothing more than pawns by the party's in power.
I'd be willing to bet John Stossel is in total agreement with what I'm saying. He's the type of Libertarian you want to be attracting, not a bunch of pissed off lib kiddies.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 16, 2016, 05:00:43 AM
Two points.
First let me preface the issue of submission to authority with what I've heard from Libertarians that goes something like this. If two parties are in conflict, say a dispute where one rendered services and was not paid by the other party, rather than involving police to arrest for criminal fraud etc they should work it out through an ombudsman, the offending party would be presumably subpeoned and report to a civil court to have the case heard, then presumably fined or ordered restitution.
Now here is the problem I have with that, being a student of Human nature.
First I tell you to fuck yourself with your subpeonea, beat the living dog shit out of anyone trying to serve me and tell the judge i'll blow a tunnel through his head if he decides against me. Then for good measure I kill you for even daring to make a beef against me. I do these terrible things because there is no one in authority to FORCE me to comply with the law.
If all submission to authority is VOLUNTARY, it only works in a society where people have a sense of honor, community and justice, in other words a society of Mr Rodgers neighborhood.
MAN IS ANYTHING BUT.....the Libertarian ideal does not conform to human nature not in the area of interpersonal conflict vis a vis rule of law. The State must have it's agents enforce laws and KEEP THE PEACE, because people are generally incapable of doing this on their own.
What you are indeed fostering is anarchy and in ANARCHAL SITUATION's THE STRONGEST MOST VIOLENT PEOPLE RULE....having seen this up close and personal in several foreign third world countries I know what I'm talking about trust me.
Second your statement about the Military cutting the budget perhaps by 50% and still be able to respond or adequately meet any national security threat seems rather mutually exclusive. In today's world our enemies are growing stronger and increasing their weaponry, aggressiveness and technology....to me this is just pure foolishness or likely wishful thinking.
What qualifies you to make such statement? How would you know what cutting the defense budget would do in regard to our readiness to meet hostile threats? Show me how you arrived at these conclusions based on what or whom?
I would say he would not be alive, as a good amount of people would tell him to just F-OFF, and walk right over the top of him. Remember all a lock does is help keep an honest person honest. :lol:
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 16, 2016, 05:00:43 AM
Two points.
First let me preface the issue of submission to authority with what I've heard from Libertarians that goes something like this. If two parties are in conflict, say a dispute where one rendered services and was not paid by the other party, rather than involving police to arrest for criminal fraud etc they should work it out through an ombudsman, the offending party would be presumably subpeoned and report to a civil court to have the case heard, then presumably fined or ordered restitution.
Now here is the problem I have with that, being a student of Human nature.
First I tell you to fuck yourself with your subpeonea, beat the living dog shit out of anyone trying to serve me and tell the judge i'll blow a tunnel through his head if he decides against me. Then for good measure I kill you for even daring to make a beef against me. I do these terrible things because there is no one in authority to FORCE me to comply with the law.
If all submission to authority is VOLUNTARY, it only works in a society where people have a sense of honor, community and justice, in other words a society of Mr Rodgers neighborhood.
MAN IS ANYTHING BUT.....the Libertarian ideal does not conform to human nature not in the area of interpersonal conflict vis a vis rule of law. The State must have it's agents enforce laws and KEEP THE PEACE, because people are generally incapable of doing this on their own.
What you are indeed fostering is anarchy and in ANARCHAL SITUATION's THE STRONGEST MOST VIOLENT PEOPLE RULE....having seen this up close and personal in several foreign third world countries I know what I'm talking about trust me.
Second your statement about the Military cutting the budget perhaps by 50% and still be able to respond or adequately meet any national security threat seems rather mutually exclusive. In today's world our enemies are growing stronger and increasing their weaponry, aggressiveness and technology....to me this is just pure foolishness or likely wishful thinking.
What qualifies you to make such statement? How would you know what cutting the defense budget would do in regard to our readiness to meet hostile threats? Show me how you arrived at these conclusions based on what or whom?
Okay, let me clarify my statements. You criticized libertarians for being against "authority" and in particular having a knee-jerk opposition to war, the military and the police. Actually, libertarians are opposed to STATE initiated
aggressive war, STATE military who fight these wars, and STATE police. States must necessarily coercively tax people to fund these institutions and they use these instruments of force to commit mass murder (in the case of the Iraq and Vietnam wars) or otherwise deprive the citizens of their liberties.
For a libertarian, force is legitimate to enforce JUST law. Without the State, there will still be courts, police and security forces and law. As Frederick Bastiat observed, a legitimate law does not compel individuals to act, but rather prohibits them from acting in ways that violate the rights of others. Therefore, if a person commits aggression against another person or violates their property rights, then that person has voluntarily given up their right to be left alone and force can be used against that person to pay restitution to the victim, serve a prison sentence or other form of punishment provided it is proportional to the crime committed.
So it doesn't matter if some people don't want to voluntarily submit to the common law which prohibits them from committing aggression against their fellow man. If they choose to act in violation of libertarian law, the private police and courts WILL use force to restrain them and compel restitution from them, and rightly so.
We are speaking about a hypothetical anarchist society, but much of the same holds true for a minarchist society. With a VERY limited State that abides by libertarian principles, the State institutions of police and courts would be exclusively concerned with acts of aggression. They would not be involved in hassling private and peaceful individuals into complying with government regulations, preventing people from ingesting the drugs or supplements of their choosing or locking people up for not paying income taxes.
Everything you conjecture about a Stateless society is even more true about a Statist society and we can observe it every single day. The "strongest and most violent people" rule us THROUGH the State. The most corrupt, duplicitous and vile people in society are attracted to government because of the immense potential for legally sanctioned domination of others, theft of their property and military conquest of foreign lands.
There will be a percentage of the population in a Stateless society that will have criminal inclinations, no doubt. But the last thing we should ever want to do is to give these criminally inclined people the immense power of the State to act out their criminal actions.
One of the best talks I ever saw in support of anarchy is this one by Robert Higgs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8
Check it out when you've got the time.
As for the military, look at the following chart which compares US military spending with the next seven countries who spend the most:
http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif
The US Government spends more money on it's military than the next seven countries combined.The next country on that list is China, and if we cut our military budget in half, we'd STILL be spending more money than China by a considerable margin. Furthermore, our economic inter-dependency with China makes it highly unlikely that we'd enter into any sort of military confrontation with them. Remember, when goods cross borders, armies don't.
Who are you so afraid of that you don't think we could stand to significantly cut our military spending? Don't tell me your honestly afraid of terrorism? Yep, I guess ISIS warrants an annual expense of $600 Billion to adequately defend against.
Even this new obsession with Russia is overblown. They have Nuclear Weapons which makes any provocation or confrontation with them absolutely insane. But still, look at how much Russia spends on it's military compared with the United States on that chart. If we cut our military spending by half, we'd still be spending more than five times as much annually as Russia does.
Back to Nuclear weapons, what we SHOULD be doing is fostering an improved relationship with Russia and working towards an orderly reduction and eventual elimination of Nuclear weapons. A nuclear exchange could wipe out the human race, or decimate it to an unfathomable extent.
You're contention that our legitimate national security threats warrant anywhere close to the military spending we currently have is unsupported by the facts.
What happened is that during the Cold War, hardliners instituted such an arms buildup that we have a perpetual and out of control military industrial complex that profits from war and by selling unnecessary airplanes, tanks, missiles and other tools of destruction. It didn't abate after the Cold War ended, as it should have.
Quote from: Solar on September 16, 2016, 05:50:27 AM
You are one seriously obtuse individual!
My point was, and if you had any historical reference, which you do not, you'd have realized the early 70s were nothing like today, where the two party system is now leftist, but still had America's best interests at heart back then.
It was for this reason the Libertarian party was viewed more as divisive than anything, and if you even had a clue what the hippie movement was all about, you'd know that it was created by Marxists with one goal, creating distrust and division in AMERICA.
"Anyone over 30 was the enemy", and no, that was not just some harmless saying, it was an ax strike between patriarchy and the next generation, add in the Libertarian movement to the equation and one can easily surmise what was driving the movement.
However, that does not detract from it's Founding principles which I posted, but with an understanding of the historical connection to the times and the movement itself, it's safe to assume distrust in its agenda, especially considering the age of those pushing the idealist program and the division between the generations at the time.
Yes, the generation gap was an impediment at the time, and if you had been exposed to the era, you'd see just how much damage the Marxists did to the Baby Boomer generation, and why we despise anything tied to the left.
You yourself even posted a brief timeline of the party's decay to the left with it's short history of candidates.
This is the point I'm trying to make, the movements platform was never meant to be an anarchist movement, but that's the direction the Millennial want to take it because they despise both party's, they think they can somehow magically remove govt from the picture and we'll all live in Utopia.
If the left had not done as much damage to the nation as it has, and had the nation rejected the policies of Marxists, the libertarian party might have take a more legitimate place in politics, but moving it left was no accident. The GOP needed it to be an incompetent force, hence Johnson, and the Marxist Dims need it to go away because it's syphoning off their base with it's anti govt approach.
In other words, anyone that supports its leftist drift, is nothing more than pawns by the party's in power.
I'd be willing to bet John Stossel is in total agreement with what I'm saying. He's the type of Libertarian you want to be attracting, not a bunch of pissed off lib kiddies.
What your saying is incoherent. On the one hand, you're praising the original Libertarian Platform and saying that libertarianism drifted left-ward over time. But then you're also saying that the party was started by a bunch of hippie, counter-culture Leftists (who somehow also drafted a great platform).
It is very wrong to claim that taking libertarianism in an anarchist direction is some new idea dreamed up by Leftist millennials. Let me ask you an honest question.
Do you know who Murray Rothbard was? He was the most important libertarian intellectual of the second half of the 20th century. He was the originator of modern libertarian anarchism. He referred to it as "anarcho-capitalism". He was instrumental in the founding of the Libertarian Party and the drafting of it's original platform, which you have praised.
It is true that the Libertarian Party was not based explicitly on anarcho-capitalism, but people have recognized the important contribution of libertarian anarchist thought within the movement.
Murray Rothbard later became disillusioned with some elements of the "official" libertarian movement within Washington D.C. In particular, he broke away from Reason magazine and the Cato Institute. These "inside-the-beltway" libertarian think tanks wanted to boost the contributions of Frederick Hayek and downplay the importance of Ludwig von Mises, while Rothbard contend that Mises was by far the more important intellectual figure. With Lew Rockwell, he formed the Mises Institute in the 1980s. The Mises Institute was, and continues to be, much more radical and more principled than the "beltway" think tanks like The Cato Institute.
And, interestingly, the Mises Institute has been far more welcoming to social conservatism and Christianity even while being more openly in favor of anarchism and radical libertarianism. They are less "Left" than most other libertarian think tanks.
I've already conceded that Gary Johnson is "leftist" on gay marriage, on anti-discrimination laws, on certain environmental policies and a number of other issues. But this does not indicate that the party has sharply moved to the left over time. I'd say the party makes up largely the same percentage of disparate groups and factions that it always has.
Do you think Ron Paul, Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik are Leftists? What about Mary Ruwart, who has been heavily involved in the Libertarian Party over the past couple decades?
Furthermore, I'd like to mention that libertarians of my age were far more likely to have been converted to libertarianism through Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, where he ran as a Republican. If you claim Ron Paul is a Leftist, then you have no idea what Left and Right really mean.
I like John Stossel, but he is supporting Gary Johnson.
What I'd really like to know is why you would feel more comfortable staying within the Republican Party than in the company of other libertarians? You might say that libertarians, and in particular the Libertarian Party, have been entirely ineffective in instituting any real change, but the same could be said for so-called "Constitutional Conservatives" who, despite all evidence to the contrary, think that the Republican Party can be a vehicle to shrink government and get back to Constitutional principles.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 16, 2016, 05:43:14 PM
For a libertarian, force is legitimate to enforce JUST law. Without the State, there will still be courts, police and security forces and law. So it doesn't matter if some people don't want to voluntarily submit to the common law which prohibits them from committing aggression against their fellow man. If they choose to act in violation of libertarian law, the private police and courts WILL use force to restrain them and compel restitution from them, and rightly so.
The US Government spends more money on it's military than the next seven countries combined.
The next country on that list is China, and if we cut our military budget in half, we'd STILL be spending more money than China by a considerable margin. Furthermore, our economic inter-dependency with China makes it highly unlikely that we'd enter into any sort of military confrontation with them. Remember, when goods cross borders, armies don't.
Who are you so afraid of that you don't think we could stand to significantly cut our military spending? Don't tell me your honestly afraid of terrorism? Yep, I guess ISIS warrants an annual expense of $600 Billion to adequately defend against.
So let me see if I got this straight, Libertarians are against any law they don;t personally promulgate or any justice system they don't design....Check.....I presume in this Lbertarian Utopia
Mala en Se laws will still be on the books, hopefully.
And if you are going to get PRIVATE POLICE AND COURTS to carry out your enforcement....congratulations, you have just created a corrupt Fiat Govt/State....Research the 19th Century range wars in the Western USA and especially the Johnson county war where this very thing happened in TERRITORIES not yet states....Ranchers hire private "police" actually gunfighters and hired killers, to enforce "their law"owned the courts etc. I could go on to extrapolate about your Pie in the Sky libertarian run courts but the facts from the range wars is a prime example why it won't work, because ANY SYSTEM man institutes WILL grow corrupt given time, once again the strongest the richest and the most violent rule or take over. HUMAN NATURE trumps any idealistic versions of the Libertarian model. History proves that time and again.
As far as your response to the Military you have not proven anything or qualified your experience to make your conclusions. All you have done is quote some stats on spending and run on about what am I or (we) afraid of, inferring terrorism isn't a biggie blah blah. And Russia and CHina spend less in their military so we shouldn't. You really beleive Stats provided by either of those countries? You need to evaluate the THREAT ACCESSMENT from Hostile countrys or organizations such as ISIS NoT HOW MUCH THEY SPEND WHICH PROBABLY ISN'T ACCURATE TO BEGIN WITH.
Newsflash. Military spending doesn't mean Jack....THE MOST FURIOUS MIND WINS BATTLES OR A WAR. That's is true for individual single combat hand to hand or armies or terrorists using utter ruthlessness to conquer. I learned this during the vietnam war where the enemy used everything, the land, the climate, Psy ops, vine ropes and pieces of Bamboo to fight with and often defeated well trained, well equipped army with the best weapons and technology. I believe right now America no longer has the most furious mind, nor the collective will to do what is necessary to defend itself from enemies within or without. In this regard I fear the foolishness of my fellow man and his stupidity more than I fear ISIS or IRan or CHina or any other hostile country.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 16, 2016, 06:32:21 PM
So let me see if I got this straight, Libertarians are against any law they don;t personally promulgate or any justice system they don't design....Check.....I presume in this Lbertarian Utopia Mala en Se laws will still be on the books, hopefully.
And if you are going to get PRIVATE POLICE AND COURTS to carry out your enforcement....congratulations, you have just created a corrupt Fiat Govt/State....Research the 19th Century range wars in the Western USA and especially the Johnson county war where this very thing happened in TERRITORIES not yet states....Ranchers hire private "police" actually gunfighters and hired killers, to enforce "their law"owned the courts etc. I could go on to extrapolate about your Pie in the Sky libertarian run courts but the facts from the range wars is a prime example why it won't work, because ANY SYSTEM man institutes WILL grow corrupt given time, once again the strongest the richest and the most violent rule or take over. HUMAN NATURE trumps any idealistic versions of the Libertarian model. History proves that time and again.
As far as your response to the Military you have not proven anything or qualified your experience to make your conclusions. All you have done is quote some stats on spending and run on about what am I or (we) afraid of, inferring terrorism isn't a biggie blah blah. And Russia and CHina spend less in their military so we shouldn't. You really beleive Stats provided by either of those countries? You need to evaluate the THREAT ACCESSMENT from Hostile countrys or organizations such as ISIS NoT HOW MUCH THEY SPEND WHICH PROBABLY ISN'T ACCURATE TO BEGIN WITH.
Newsflash. Military spending doesn't mean Jack....THE MOST FURIOUS MIND WINS BATTLES OR A WAR. That's is true for individual single combat hand to hand or armies or terrorists using utter ruthlessness to conquer. I learned this during the vietnam war where the enemy used everything, the land, the climate, Psy ops, vine ropes and pieces of Bamboo to fight with and often defeated well trained, well equipped army with the best weapons and technology. I believe right now America no longer has the most furious mind, nor the collective will to do what is necessary to defend itself from enemies within or without. In this regard I fear the foolishness of my fellow man and his stupidity more than I fear ISIS or IRan or CHina or any other hostile country.
In the first place, everything you argued about man's nature would provide more support for my position than yours. There is no Utopia, I've never used the word and neither should you. It is a smear term that merely poisons the well. Given man's nature, there will be many problems in any human society given all that we know about human nature. The anarchist merely contends that the problems that exist naturally are made exponentially worse with the establishment of a State, rather than ameliorated.
This is how law and order in a Stateless society would likely function. Individuals and communities would freely contract with security services that are provided on the market. These private police would be tasked with protecting the property of their clients and identifying any violators for potential prosecution. Different security agencies would be competing on the market for clients and if one agency fails to keep the peace, prevent burglaries, rapes, homicides and so forth, then they can be fired and a more competent security service can be hired in their place. This competition would incentivize innovation and improve the service.
Since we live in a world of scarcity, conflict is inevitable so private arbitration agencies would be provided to settle disputes. Suppose a criminal stole something from you. Your private security company would instigate an investigation to determine who the perpetrator was. With the aid of security cameras and other technology, they would likely be able to determine who committed the aggression. At the very least they'd be FAR more likely to be able to determine who committed the crime than Socialist police in a Statist society, since they'd be funded by voluntary customers and face competition from other firms.
Then you'd take this evidence to an arbitration service, who would issue a warrant for the arrest of the perpetrator. The court proceedings would occur largely the same as they do under State courts. If the defendant is found to be guilty he can be compelled to pay restitution to the victim.
Crucially, the dispute arbitration agencies in a free society would be basing their decision on the concepts of
Justice,
Natural Rights and the
Non-Aggression Principle.
After a series of rulings by respected arbitration agencies, Common Law is developed through the adherence to precedent. Law is not something that should be legislated and thought up by politicians, but rather is to be discovered through the adjudication of disputes. Hard cases will be hashed out in court proceedings the various decisions will be codified by legal scholars into a general understanding of what the "law" is.
Just as there was no central planning for the English language, but rather dictionary manufacturers simply catalog the commonly used words which describe different things, law would develop in this natural way.
There are a million reasons why private armies wouldn't just rise up and do open battle with each other without a State. I'd suggest you read a little of the anarchist libertarian literature for the reasons. Robert Higgs, Hans Hermann-Hoppe and Robert P. Murphy have written important articles and books on the subject of libertarian anarchism.
As for the military argument, you are moving the goal posts. My contention was that we could easily cut our military spending by 50-60% and be able to defend ourselves just as well, if not better than we currently can. You didn't address that point, but moved on to speaking about how winning battles is dependent on having a "furious mind" or a level of ruthlessness that you think we currently lack. Okay, then you concede that we don't need to spend anywhere near the amount of money we currently do on our military?
Seriously, what are you concerned about as far as national security threats? Frankly, if your primary fear is ISIS or Islamic terrorism, you would be laughed out of the room by anyone who knows the first thing about terrorism. Not to say that there is NO threat from Islamic terrorism, but the threat is largely blowback from US military interventions into the Middle East. If we stopped intervening into those countries, the already minute threat posed by Islamic terrorism would be greatly reduced.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 16, 2016, 07:03:46 PM
Since we live in a world of scarcity, conflict is inevitable so private arbitration agencies would be provided to settle disputes. Suppose a criminal stole something from you. Your private security company would instigate an investigation to determine who the perpetrator was. With the aid of security cameras and other technology, they would likely be able to determine who committed the aggression. At the very least they'd be FAR more likely to be able to determine who committed the crime than Socialist police in a Statist society, since they'd be funded by voluntary customers and face competition from other firms.
Then you'd take this evidence to an arbitration service, who would issue a warrant for the arrest of the perpetrator. The court proceedings would occur largely the same as they do under State courts. If the defendant is found to be guilty he can be compelled to pay restitution to the victim.
Crucially, the dispute arbitration agencies in a free society would be basing their decision on the concepts of Justice, Natural Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.
After a series of rulings by respected arbitration agencies, Common Law is developed through the adherence to precedent. Law is not something that should be legislated and thought up by politicians, but rather is to be discovered through the adjudication of disputes. Hard cases will be hashed out in court proceedings the various decisions will be codified by legal scholars into a general understanding of what the "law" is.
Just as there was no central planning for the English language, but rather dictionary manufacturers simply catalog the commonly used words which describe different things, law would develop in this natural way.
There are a million reasons why private armies wouldn't just rise up and do open battle with each other without a State. I'd suggest you read a little of the anarchist libertarian literature for the reasons. Robert Higgs, Hans Hermann-Hoppe and Robert P. Murphy have written important articles and books on the subject of libertarian anarchism.
As for the military argument, you are moving the goal posts. My contention was that we could easily cut our military spending by 50-60% and be able to defend ourselves just as well, if not better than we currently can. You didn't address that point, but moved on to speaking about how winning battles is dependent on having a "furious mind" or a level of ruthlessness that you think we currently lack. Okay, then you concede that we don't need to spend anywhere near the amount of money we currently do on our military?
Seriously, what are you concerned about as far as national security threats? Frankly, if your primary fear is ISIS or Islamic terrorism, you would be laughed out of the room by anyone who knows the first thing about terrorism. Not to say that there is NO threat from Islamic terrorism, but the threat is largely blowback from US military interventions into the Middle East. If we stopped intervening into those countries, the already minute threat posed by Islamic terrorism would be greatly reduced.
well thought out but still a failure, private police would not be any more efficient than "socialist" police. We
Do have private security firms....I ought to know as I've managed/owned a few of them and have spent time in related professions specifically private investigator, bodyguard and bail recovery agent. Coupled with 25 years in "socialist" State Law enforcement I think I know better than you how each functions and to what degree of efficiency.
One of the great problems in our society is the issue of Jurisdiction, criminals have no jurisdictional lines, no boundries. They use such to thwart "Socialist" Police as well as private security. Private security would be bound by the invisible wall mandated by the client (s) who hired them. Here we go again with Cattle Barons hiring Gunfighters to protect your cattle, not your neighbors twenty miles away on t he next ranch.Hunting down criminals is expensive, I seriously doubt you'd want to pay the price tag to have your stolen camera and wide screen TV recovered what it would cost Private security officers to run them down. ABandoning their post in favor of persuit. It was my experience in Private security that CLients were only willing to pay for
bargain basement security, that means the lowest bidder, that means the least paid officers, that means the laziest, most inefficient and ineffective firms usually win the contract. Private security is riddled with incompetence for these reasons, your wishful thinking Libertarian idealism isn't going to change it either.
I'm not conceding anything regarding Military spending, I will point out that increasing technology grows more sophisticated, therefore more expensive. Weapons systems and support will only increase in cost....some of that free market capitalism we ought to be so proud of. You have no idea the impact a 40 OR even 50% cut would make in our Military EFFECTIVENESS. What technology would you cut? What programs? What weapons systems or support? Here again based on what? have you ever been in the Military? You can;t just throw out a number and say We could cut 50% and still maintain national security IT IS MEANINGLESS unless you have some expertise, experience whatever to rely on. Now coming from some former top General or Pentagon maven it might carry some weight But from guys like me and You or Robert Higgs its just nonsense.
ANd PUH LEEZE don;t tell me your getting this from those authors you quoted WTF do they know? More importantly WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE?
The worst thing in the world is basing your opinion on some intellectual type who has never done anything other than write books and come up with various idealistic trains of thought.
So now we get to the last part about how anybody who knows anything about terrorism would laugh me out of the room. Seriously, who do you know PERSONALLY that knows jack shit about terrorism, ISIS or security threats to the USA? ANd again don't tell me about some fuck head who wrote a book or is running his mouth on You Tube. I FORGOT more about terrorism than you or some of those so called security experts who pop up from time to time ever learned or will ever learn.
What I told you about "
furious Mind" went right over yours.... next time pay attention. if you did you'd understand that ISIS is not our worst threat, Iran is. And if you think drawing your head and limbs into a non interventionist turtle shell is going to dissipate the threat of Islamofacist aggression there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for cheap.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 16, 2016, 08:25:33 PM
well thought out but still a failure, private police would not be any more efficient than "socialist" police. We Do have private security firms....I ought to know as I've managed/owned a few of them and have spent time in related professions specifically private investigator, bodyguard and bail recovery agent. Coupled with 25 years in "socialist" State Law enforcement I think I know better than you how each functions and to what degree of efficiency.
One of the great problems in our society is the issue of Jurisdiction, criminals have no jurisdictional lines, no boundries. They use such to thwart "Socialist" Police as well as private security. Private security would be bound by the invisible wall mandated by the client (s) who hired them. Here we go again with Cattle Barons hiring Gunfighters to protect your cattle, not your neighbors twenty miles away on t he next ranch.Hunting down criminals is expensive, I seriously doubt you'd want to pay the price tag to have your stolen camera and wide screen TV recovered what it would cost Private security officers to run them down. ABandoning their post in favor of persuit. It was my experience in Private security that CLients were only willing to pay for bargain basement security, that means the lowest bidder, that means the least paid officers, that means the laziest, most inefficient and ineffective firms usually win the contract. Private security is riddled with incompetence for these reasons, your wishful thinking Libertarian idealism isn't going to change it either.
I'm not conceding anything regarding Military spending, I will point out that increasing technology grows more sophisticated, therefore more expensive. Weapons systems and support will only increase in cost....some of that free market capitalism we ought to be so proud of. You have no idea the impact a 40 OR even 50% cut would make in our Military EFFECTIVENESS. What technology would you cut? What programs? What weapons systems or support? Here again based on what? have you ever been in the Military? You can;t just throw out a number and say We could cut 50% and still maintain national security IT IS MEANINGLESS unless you have some expertise, experience whatever to rely on. Now coming from some former top General or Pentagon maven it might carry some weight But from guys like me and You or Robert Higgs its just nonsense.
ANd PUH LEEZE don;t tell me your getting this from those authors you quoted WTF do they know? More importantly WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE?
The worst thing in the world is basing your opinion on some intellectual type who has never done anything other than write books and come up with various idealistic trains of thought.
So now we get to the last part about how anybody who knows anything about terrorism would laugh me out of the room. Seriously, who do you know PERSONALLY that knows jack shit about terrorism, ISIS or security threats to the USA? ANd again don't tell me about some fuck head who wrote a book or is running his mouth on You Tube. I FORGOT more about terrorism than you or some of those so called security experts who pop up from time to time ever learned or will ever learn.
What I told you about "furious Mind" went right over yours.... next time pay attention. if you did you'd understand that ISIS is not our worst threat, Iran is. And if you think drawing your head and limbs into a non interventionist turtle shell is going to dissipate the threat of Islamofacist aggression there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for cheap.
After all is said and done. Someone will have to die to keep this fool alive. He is damn sure not going to die for someone to have there freedom. Where will he get a "private police force" that will not end up turning on him, if someone will pays them more. :lol:
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 16, 2016, 08:25:33 PM
well thought out but still a failure, private police would not be any more efficient than "socialist" police. We Do have private security firms....I ought to know as I've managed/owned a few of them and have spent time in related professions specifically private investigator, bodyguard and bail recovery agent. Coupled with 25 years in "socialist" State Law enforcement I think I know better than you how each functions and to what degree of efficiency.
One of the great problems in our society is the issue of Jurisdiction, criminals have no jurisdictional lines, no boundries. They use such to thwart "Socialist" Police as well as private security. Private security would be bound by the invisible wall mandated by the client (s) who hired them. Here we go again with Cattle Barons hiring Gunfighters to protect your cattle, not your neighbors twenty miles away on t he next ranch.Hunting down criminals is expensive, I seriously doubt you'd want to pay the price tag to have your stolen camera and wide screen TV recovered what it would cost Private security officers to run them down. ABandoning their post in favor of persuit. It was my experience in Private security that CLients were only willing to pay for bargain basement security, that means the lowest bidder, that means the least paid officers, that means the laziest, most inefficient and ineffective firms usually win the contract. Private security is riddled with incompetence for these reasons, your wishful thinking Libertarian idealism isn't going to change it either.
I'm not conceding anything regarding Military spending, I will point out that increasing technology grows more sophisticated, therefore more expensive. Weapons systems and support will only increase in cost....some of that free market capitalism we ought to be so proud of. You have no idea the impact a 40 OR even 50% cut would make in our Military EFFECTIVENESS. What technology would you cut? What programs? What weapons systems or support? Here again based on what? have you ever been in the Military? You can;t just throw out a number and say We could cut 50% and still maintain national security IT IS MEANINGLESS unless you have some expertise, experience whatever to rely on. Now coming from some former top General or Pentagon maven it might carry some weight But from guys like me and You or Robert Higgs its just nonsense.
ANd PUH LEEZE don;t tell me your getting this from those authors you quoted WTF do they know? More importantly WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE?
The worst thing in the world is basing your opinion on some intellectual type who has never done anything other than write books and come up with various idealistic trains of thought.
So now we get to the last part about how anybody who knows anything about terrorism would laugh me out of the room. Seriously, who do you know PERSONALLY that knows jack shit about terrorism, ISIS or security threats to the USA? ANd again don't tell me about some fuck head who wrote a book or is running his mouth on You Tube. I FORGOT more about terrorism than you or some of those so called security experts who pop up from time to time ever learned or will ever learn.
What I told you about "furious Mind" went right over yours.... next time pay attention. if you did you'd understand that ISIS is not our worst threat, Iran is. And if you think drawing your head and limbs into a non interventionist turtle shell is going to dissipate the threat of Islamofacist aggression there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for cheap.
Iran?!! Iran is our biggest threat? As of 2013, Iran spends 17.7 Billion dollars annually on their military. If we cut HALF of our national security spending per year, we'd STILL be spending more than 300 Billion dollars annually on our military. You really think that "our greatest national security threat" would all of a sudden want to start a war with the United States if we only spent 282.3 Billion dollars more than them on our military each year?
I'm basing my opinion on the writings of economists, national security experts and ex-CIA authors and journalists who have done actual research on these subjects. I mentioned it before, but Robert Pape and former CIA bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer know more about Islamic terrorism that almost anyone else and they support MY argument, not yours.
I find it rather funny that you'd trust the opinion of a Pentagon spokesperson or General, who has a vested interest in ever-expanding budgets and defense contracts for military contractors over independent journalists, economists and authors. Many or most of the people I rely on have all the requisite military and CIA experience to have informed opinions on these issues without all of the conflicts of interest that current war propagandists have.
Quote from: walkstall on September 16, 2016, 09:05:27 PM
After all is said and done. Someone will have to die to keep this fool alive. He is damn sure not going to die for someone to have there freedom. Where will he get a "private police force" that will not end up turning on him, if someone will pays them more. :lol:
All right, so you favor small government, except in regards to the Pentagon and military spending, which is greater than the next seven or eight nations military budgets combined.
You believe in the Constitution and revere the Founders, except where they argue AGAINST entangling alliances and military empire.
If you believe in a military and foreign policy that someone like Mark Levin would endorse, then you absolutely have to give up on the idea of EVER having a limited government. Actual advocates for limited government have written for decades about how military conflicts and increasing defense spending lead to restricted liberties domestically and the growth of government. In fact, governments grow the most during times of war. Therefore, people who want to trample upon your liberty and centralize power will push propaganda that makes the population fearful.
Wartime conditions become perpetual and we must have an enemy to scare the public about. During the Cold War, the enemy was the Soviet Union. Conservatives like William F. Buckley convinced conservatives that they must "temporarily" abandon their small government views and focus on this existential threat. They must support a massive military buildup and tolerate domestic welfare spending in the meantime. Of course, after the Cold War ended, we never reclaimed those liberties that we gave up. We had new enemies. The new enemies that the National Security State identified were Islamic terrorists. Saddam was the enemy, then Al Qaeda, then Iran, then ISIS and now we're told we must consider Russia the great danger once again.
It's okay if you come clean and abandon any support for limited government and the Constitution, but at least you owe it to yourself to be honest about it.
By the way, if you really think Iran poses a grave national security threat to the United States even after the Nuclear deal, then you must have simply been exposed to a constant stream of propaganda from right-wing talk radio or other conservative outlets.
If you want to know the truth about Iran and the propaganda war that Israel, the Neo-conservatives and the National Security State have been waging against them for twenty years, then you should read the book "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare" by Gareth Porter. Porter is one of the best investigative journalists working today and he'll set you straight on the ACTUAL facts that pertain to Iran and the supposed threat we face from them.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 16, 2016, 11:17:52 PM
All right, so you favor small government, except in regards to the Pentagon and military spending, which is greater than the next seven or eight nations military budgets combined.
You believe in the Constitution and revere the Founders, except where they argue AGAINST entangling alliances and military empire.
If you believe in a military and foreign policy that someone like Mark Levin would endorse, then you absolutely have to give up on the idea of EVER having a limited government. Actual advocates for limited government have written for decades about how military conflicts and increasing defense spending lead to restricted liberties domestically and the growth of government. In fact, governments grow the most during times of war. Therefore, people who want to trample upon your liberty and centralize power will push propaganda that makes the population fearful.
Wartime conditions become perpetual and we must have an enemy to scare the public about. During the Cold War, the enemy was the Soviet Union. Conservatives like William F. Buckley convinced conservatives that they must "temporarily" abandon their small government views and focus on this existential threat. They must support a massive military buildup and tolerate domestic welfare spending in the meantime. Of course, after the Cold War ended, we never reclaimed those liberties that we gave up. We had new enemies. The new enemies that the National Security State identified were Islamic terrorists. Saddam was the enemy, then Al Qaeda, then Iran, then ISIS and now we're told we must consider Russia the great danger once again.
It's okay if you come clean and abandon any support for limited government and the Constitution, but at least you owe it to yourself to be honest about it.
By the way, if you really think Iran poses a grave national security threat to the United States even after the Nuclear deal, then you must have simply been exposed to a constant stream of propaganda from right-wing talk radio or other conservative outlets.
If you want to know the truth about Iran and the propaganda war that Israel, the Neo-conservatives and the National Security State have been waging against them for twenty years, then you should read the book "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare" by Gareth Porter. Porter is one of the best investigative journalists working today and he'll set you straight on the ACTUAL facts that pertain to Iran and the supposed threat we face from them.
I was talking "private police force". That will Sale out to the highest bidder. You keep fling poo and hope it will stick.
Quote from: walkstall on September 17, 2016, 04:51:51 AM
I was talking "private police force". That will Sale out to the highest bidder. You keep fling poo and hope it will stick.
I was actually more speaking to you all collectively with that comment rather than responding to your comment in particular. Do you agree with me that the United States could easily cut more than 50% of its military spending and still be perfectly capable of defending against any national security threats? Do you agree with me that you cannot support the sort of foreign policy that most of you seem to support while also believing in limited government and the Constitution? Those are mutually exclusive positions.
Speaking of private police forces, they are only one way to provide security in a State-less society. Communities could voluntarily provide a neighborhood watch program. Non-police security agencies could sell you surveillance equipment and technology to deter crime. A free society would likely be an armed society, so people will have access to legal firearms which is the last and best line of defense against crime.
As I'm sure you know, communities without gun control laws that have more law-abiding gun owners have far less crime since criminals don't know who is armed or unarmed.
I'm sure there will be volunteer security groups that come together to protect the neighborhood of poorer people. There are so many potential avenues for effective crime deterrence if we don't place our trust in a State monopoly.
Do conservatives believe in the free market or don't they? How can you argue for free market healthcare and criticize socialist healthcare one moment and the next criticize free market defense and police while endorsing socialist police?
Can you not see the contradiction in your thinking?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 16, 2016, 06:25:54 PM
What your saying is incoherent. On the one hand, you're praising the original Libertarian Platform and saying that libertarianism drifted left-ward over time. But then you're also saying that the party was started by a bunch of hippie, counter-culture Leftists (who somehow also drafted a great platform).
Only because you have no historical reference because you weren't born yet.
It is very wrong to claim that taking libertarianism in an anarchist direction is some new idea dreamed up by Leftist millennials. Let me ask you an honest question.
QuoteDo you know who Murray Rothbard was?
He was the most important libertarian intellectual of the second half of the 20th century. He was the originator of modern libertarian anarchism. He referred to it as "anarcho-capitalism". He was instrumental in the founding of the Libertarian Party and the drafting of it's original platform, which you have praised.
:biggrin:
To refresh my memory I searched and found an interesting bio. "a staunch advocate of historical revisionism", but beyond that, I remember the nut.
QuoteIt is true that the Libertarian Party was not based explicitly on anarcho-capitalism, but people have recognized the important contribution of libertarian anarchist thought within the movement.
Murray Rothbard later became disillusioned with some elements of the "official" libertarian movement within Washington D.C. In particular, he broke away from Reason magazine and the Cato Institute. These "inside-the-beltway" libertarian think tanks wanted to boost the contributions of Frederick Hayek and downplay the importance of Ludwig von Mises, while Rothbard contend that Mises was by far the more important intellectual figure. With Lew Rockwell, he formed the Mises Institute in the 1980s. The Mises Institute was, and continues to be, much more radical and more principled than the "beltway" think tanks like The Cato Institute.
And, interestingly, the Mises Institute has been far more welcoming to social conservatism and Christianity even while being more openly in favor of anarchism and radical libertarianism. They are less "Left" than most other libertarian think tanks.
I've already conceded that Gary Johnson is "leftist" on gay marriage, on anti-discrimination laws, on certain environmental policies and a number of other issues. But this does not indicate that the party has sharply moved to the left over time. I'd say the party makes up largely the same percentage of disparate groups and factions that it always has.
It matters not how many differing factions make up a movement, what matters most is the majority squeaky wheel, which at current time are pissed off Libs.
QuoteDo you think Ron Paul, Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik are Leftists? What about Mary Ruwart, who has been heavily involved in the Libertarian Party over the past couple decades?
Furthermore, I'd like to mention that libertarians of my age were far more likely to have been converted to libertarianism through Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, where he ran as a Republican. If you claim Ron Paul is a Leftist, then you have no idea what Left and Right really mean.
None of which are running.
QuoteI like John Stossel, but he is supporting Gary Johnson.
I've heard others say that as well, but I've yet to here Stossel himself say it.
QuoteWhat I'd really like to know is why you would feel more comfortable staying within the Republican Party than in the company of other libertarians? You might say that libertarians, and in particular the Libertarian Party, have been entirely ineffective in instituting any real change, but the same could be said for so-called "Constitutional Conservatives" who, despite all evidence to the contrary, think that the Republican Party can be a vehicle to shrink government and get back to Constitutional principles.
I do not support the GOP, I advocate stealing the party from the leftists and making it a Conservative party, something it's never been.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 17, 2016, 05:39:42 AM
I was actually more speaking to you all collectively with that comment rather than responding to your comment in particular. Do you agree with me that the United States could easily cut more than 50% of its military spending and still be perfectly capable of defending against any national security threats? Do you agree with me that you cannot support the sort of foreign policy that most of you seem to support while also believing in limited government and the Constitution? Those are mutually exclusive positions.
Speaking of private police forces, they are only one way to provide security in a State-less society. Communities could voluntarily provide a neighborhood watch program. Non-police security agencies could sell you surveillance equipment and technology to deter crime. A free society would likely be an armed society, so people will have access to legal firearms which is the last and best line of defense against crime.
As I'm sure you know, communities without gun control laws that have more law-abiding gun owners have far less crime since criminals don't know who is armed or unarmed.
I'm sure there will be volunteer security groups that come together to protect the neighborhood of poorer people. There are so many potential avenues for effective crime deterrence if we don't place our trust in a State monopoly.
Do conservatives believe in the free market or don't they? How can you argue for free market healthcare and criticize socialist healthcare one moment and the next criticize free market defense and police while endorsing socialist police?
Can you not see the contradiction in your thinking?
A "volunteer" police force??? Maybe we could call them vigilantes?
Quote from: s3779m on September 17, 2016, 02:35:16 PM
A "volunteer" police force??? Maybe we could call them vigilantes?
That what they call the Red Cross and United Good Neighbors. You volunteer your time and money. We will take a very large cut for a very large salary before helping someone. You pay us first then we my help someone.
Quote from: s3779m on September 17, 2016, 02:35:16 PM
A "volunteer" police force??? Maybe we could call them vigilantes?
Africa calls them "War Lords". That's the problem with these idealistic kids, they have no concept of human nature.
Quote from: Solar on September 17, 2016, 02:57:30 PM
Africa calls them "War Lords". That's the problem with these idealistic kids, they have no concept of human nature.
I can not imagine what it would be like with a volunteer police force roaming the streets. What would the difference be between them and gangs? Well, I was going to look into the libertarian party but think I'll let it pass...... Looking forward to the midterms.
Quote from: s3779m on September 17, 2016, 03:41:23 PM
I can not imagine what it would be like with a volunteer police force roaming the streets. What would the difference be between them and gangs? Well, I was going to look into the libertarian party but think I'll let it pass...... Looking forward to the midterms.
Remember 8th grade 'Hall Monitors'? That's the best way to describe it. Idealistic, with the belief they are judge, jury and hangman.
They are completely clueless to the differences between Police and Sheriffs, and the power they wield.
I can see the arguments starting now over whether Black Lives Matters are vigilantes or just common street thugs. Golly, they'll be SOOOOOOO understanding in white communities, showing respect for white culture...like Democrats insist all whites show to the street thugs. The hyupocrisy is large in this one.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 16, 2016, 11:04:02 PM
Iran?!! Iran is our biggest threat? As of 2013, Iran spends 17.7 Billion dollars annually on their military. If we cut HALF of our national security spending per year, we'd STILL be spending more than 300 Billion dollars annually on our military. You really think that "our greatest national security threat" would all of a sudden want to start a war with the United States if we only spent 282.3 Billion dollars more than them on our military each year?
I'm basing my opinion on the writings of economists, national security experts and ex-CIA authors and journalists who have done actual research on these subjects. I mentioned it before, but Robert Pape and former CIA bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer know more about Islamic terrorism that almost anyone else and they support MY argument, not yours.
I find it rather funny that you'd trust the opinion of a Pentagon spokesperson or General, who has a vested interest in ever-expanding budgets and defense contracts for military contractors over independent journalists, economists and authors. Many or most of the people I rely on have all the requisite military and CIA experience to have informed opinions on these issues without all of the conflicts of interest that current war propagandists have.
Here you go again relating "Money spent on Military" with anything relevant. Thats why I told you about Guerilla who used bamboo stick to fight us....hiw much money you think they spent on sharpening bamboo stick and digging punji stick pits? That's why I keep telling you about "furious Mind" which I know you have no clue of.....
Let me school ya.
IRAN HAS THE INTENT (Furious mind) of becoming the TOP DOG in the region, that means they want to initiate, restore and impose the Calipahte on the rest of the Muslim world. Iran figures they are entitled as most of Islam's holy Shrines except for those in Saudi Arabia (Hold that thought I'll return to it) are in IRAN. Now to make it complete they HAVE to get Mecca and Medina..
.for he who controls Mecca controls Islam. THEY WILL USE ANY MEANS NECESSARY, funding terrorism, deals with Putin, Fear and intimidation of their PERSIAN Gulf neighbors.....financial ....ANYTHING. Their military budget means little, I doubt they are telling the truth anyhow, teamed up with Russia, they are indeed formidible, and when they actually have the nuke AND THE DELIVERY SYSTEM...watch out.
I dont pay much attention to Media "experts" or Authors....I pay attention to experts in the field...that means people who have been in the field and have the experience necessary to establish reliability and CREDIBILITY.
Such persons provide the intell that desk bound schumcks like some of the people you are referencing depend on to do their analysis I can find half a dozen different people who will refute your references and sources until it becomes nothing but dueling "experts" thats why I rely on MY experiences, background and training and those of people I have come to know and trust.
DUring my somewhat breif Tenure in UAE and Kuwait just before the Iraq Invasion you know what? Very few of those people were really concerned about Saddam and his Chemical weapons (Which everyone connected with security and military KNEW) he had. THEY WERE MORE FRIGHTED OF IRAN....because IRAN HAD THE INTENT....
THE FURIOUS MIND, to SUBJEGATE ALL OF ISLAM, not just expand their borders.
To conclude, anyone who thinks Iran is NOT a threat to the US, to the region and to world stability is a fool on the greatest order and should be hit in the head with a croquet mallet in an effort to instill some sense.
ANd we can withdraw, disarm, stand down and stick our heads in the dirt or up our asses, it doesn't matter BECAUSE THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. Those people have a different thought process than you and I. We humiliated them by installing the Shah (Palavi dynesty) Now we have to pay...
.if it takes a thousand years we, America must pay. THERE IS NOTHING,
NOTHING America can do but surrender abjectly to these fanatics and convert to their stupid religion.
Know you enemy, know him as you know yourself.
Wise up.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 17, 2016, 05:39:42 AM
I was actually more speaking to you all collectively with that comment rather than responding to your comment in particular. Do you agree with me that the United States could easily cut more than 50% of its military spending and still be perfectly capable of defending against any national security threats? Do you agree with me that you cannot support the sort of foreign policy that most of you seem to support while also believing in limited government and the Constitution? Those are mutually exclusive positions.
Speaking of private police forces, they are only one way to provide security in a State-less society. Communities could voluntarily provide a neighborhood watch program. Non-police security agencies could sell you surveillance equipment and technology to deter crime. A free society would likely be an armed society, so people will have access to legal firearms which is the last and best line of defense against crime.
As I'm sure you know, communities without gun control laws that have more law-abiding gun owners have far less crime since criminals don't know who is armed or unarmed.
I'm sure there will be volunteer security groups that come together to protect the neighborhood of poorer people. There are so many potential avenues for effective crime deterrence if we don't place our trust in a State monopoly.
Do conservatives believe in the free market or don't they? How can you argue for free market healthcare and criticize socialist healthcare one moment and the next criticize free market defense and police while endorsing socialist police?
Can you not see the contradiction in your thinking?
Now who Pray tale would License, monitor and CONTROL these "Volunteer Police" groups or "Private security forces" hired to maintain "order"? Some GOVT ENTITY would HAVE TO...same with DMV, you have to have some standards and guidelines to grant individual "guards" or "Police" a permit or license and to license the agencies that they work for making sure they have a bond or insurance. Much the same as licencing standards to get a drivers permit or register a vehicle. SO looks like we are back to square one with a Govt or regulatory body.
Most states currently have such rules regulations and licencing bodies, otherwise you;d have lunatics, felons, and completely unqualified persons with no training or education running around armed and enforcing regulations, violating the hell out of everyone's rights and possibly dangerous to innocent parties. You have to have training standards in basic law, the constitution and don;t forget qualifications with a firearm.
As far as "Volunteer forces coming together to protect poorer neighborhoods"
Boy are you ever right about that....They are called
Gangs....thats is what would happen ala Al Capone and his conquest of Cicereo Illinois or organized crime building their money laundering operation in Las Vegas. Crooks, gang bangers and the rest of the underworld would and could form their own "Volunteer Police forces" and keep out any real law enforcement intended to to thwart their ongoing criminal activities or of course rival criminals.
You really haven't thought this concept out in practical means have you?
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 19, 2016, 05:23:33 PM
Now who Pray tale would License, monitor and CONTROL these "Volunteer Police" groups or "Private security forces" hired to maintain "order"? Some GOVT ENTITY would HAVE TO...same with DMV, you have to have some standards and guidelines to grant individual "guards" or "Police" a permit or license and to license the agencies that they work for making sure they have a bond or insurance. Much the same as licencing standards to get a drivers permit or register a vehicle. SO looks like we are back to square one with a Govt or regulatory body.
Most states currently have such rules regulations and licencing bodies, otherwise you;d have lunatics, felons, and completely unqualified persons with no training or education running around armed and enforcing regulations, violating the hell out of everyone's rights and possibly dangerous to innocent parties. You have to have training standards in basic law, the constitution and don;t forget qualifications with a firearm.
As far as "Volunteer forces coming together to protect poorer neighborhoods" Boy are you ever right about that....They are called Gangs....thats is what would happen ala Al Capone and his conquest of Cicereo Illinois or organized crime building their money laundering operation in Las Vegas. Crooks, gang bangers and the rest of the underworld would and could form their own "Volunteer Police forces" and keep out any real law enforcement intended to to thwart their ongoing criminal activities or of course rival criminals.
You really haven't thought this concept out in practical means have you?
Young people think, there for it will automatically happen on it own. This fool need about 80 years under his belt.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 19, 2016, 08:12:28 AM
Here you go again relating "Money spent on Military" with anything relevant. Thats why I told you about Guerilla who used bamboo stick to fight us....hiw much money you think they spent on sharpening bamboo stick and digging punji stick pits? That's why I keep telling you about "furious Mind" which I know you have no clue of.....
Let me school ya.
IRAN HAS THE INTENT (Furious mind) of becoming the TOP DOG in the region, that means they want to initiate, restore and impose the Calipahte on the rest of the Muslim world. Iran figures they are entitled as most of Islam's holy Shrines except for those in Saudi Arabia (Hold that thought I'll return to it) are in IRAN. Now to make it complete they HAVE to get Mecca and Medina...for he who controls Mecca controls Islam. THEY WILL USE ANY MEANS NECESSARY, funding terrorism, deals with Putin, Fear and intimidation of their PERSIAN Gulf neighbors.....financial ....ANYTHING. Their military budget means little, I doubt they are telling the truth anyhow, teamed up with Russia, they are indeed formidible, and when they actually have the nuke AND THE DELIVERY SYSTEM...watch out.
I dont pay much attention to Media "experts" or Authors....I pay attention to experts in the field...that means people who have been in the field and have the experience necessary to establish reliability and CREDIBILITY.
Such persons provide the intell that desk bound schumcks like some of the people you are referencing depend on to do their analysis I can find half a dozen different people who will refute your references and sources until it becomes nothing but dueling "experts" thats why I rely on MY experiences, background and training and those of people I have come to know and trust.
DUring my somewhat breif Tenure in UAE and Kuwait just before the Iraq Invasion you know what? Very few of those people were really concerned about Saddam and his Chemical weapons (Which everyone connected with security and military KNEW) he had. THEY WERE MORE FRIGHTED OF IRAN....because IRAN HAD THE INTENT....THE FURIOUS MIND, to SUBJEGATE ALL OF ISLAM, not just expand their borders.
To conclude, anyone who thinks Iran is NOT a threat to the US, to the region and to world stability is a fool on the greatest order and should be hit in the head with a croquet mallet in an effort to instill some sense.
ANd we can withdraw, disarm, stand down and stick our heads in the dirt or up our asses, it doesn't matter BECAUSE THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. Those people have a different thought process than you and I. We humiliated them by installing the Shah (Palavi dynesty) Now we have to pay....if it takes a thousand years we, America must pay. THERE IS NOTHING, NOTHING America can do but surrender abjectly to these fanatics and convert to their stupid religion.
Know you enemy, know him as you know yourself.
Wise up.
I'd like to know which experts you are relying on regarding Iran and the danger they pose to the United States. I'm not trying to make this a "duel of experts" because my arguments rely on more than just citing studies, charts and quotes from others. But I am genuinely interested in where you are getting your information. I just hope it's more than just Mark Levin and right wing talk radio.
You say that speaking about military spending is irrelevant, but I beg to differ. I am a non-interventionist libertarian who wants to drastically shrink the size and scope of government. Our government is already insolvent, with a 20 Trillion dollar national debt and more than 200 Trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. If we want to create a soft landing rather than wait for a very painful calamity, we should want to cut spending as much as possible as soon as possible.
It will be difficult to immediately slash entitlements. The best we can hope for there is a decades-long transition period where we can wean Americans off of dependency slowly. And even that will be politically difficult since beneficiaries of government largess are unlikely to want to give up their benefits.
The easiest place to make significant cuts immediately is in our military spending. Military spending is often claimed to be around 650 Million dollars per year, but experts have estimated that the entire cost of maintaining our world empire is closer to 1 Trillion dollars annually.
I am proposing that we start immediately closing down all military bases around the world and bringing the troops home. We should allow the Germans to defend themselves and the Japanese to defend themselves without our interference. We should end all foreign aid and stop bombing, occupying and intervening into the middle east in particular.
If we did these steps, we could
easily cut our military spending in half and still be more than capable to defending ourselves against any real or potential threat.
You didn't address this point, but I wish you would.
I think you are turning Iran into an entirely fictitious boogeyman. But it is nice to see that you, at least for a moment, seem to recognize the important principle of "blowback" when you conceded that some Iranians are angry at the United States for the overthrow of their elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh and the installing of the Shah. This anger is not unjustified but this does NOT mean that Iran will launch any sort of attack against the United States militarily, least of all a Nuclear strike.
Do you really think that the Iranian people and their government are suicidal? If they were to ever get a nuclear weapon and they were to even think about launching it at Israel or the United States, we'd retaliate and wipe their entire country off the map in a matter of hours. Hiroshima and Nagasaki will seem like child's play in comparison.
And this is under the very dubious assumption that they either want to, or have the ability to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon under the tremendous international scrutiny they've been subject to.
More importantly, Iran has not waged an aggressive war in modern history. It's leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike".
Here is a great blog post clearly up some of these misconceptions about Iran:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/top-things-you-think-you-know-about.html
Now, with the signing of Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal in exchange for sanctions relief, it makes it FAR more difficult for them to even consider developing a Nuclear weapon. Regardless of your opinion of Obama or of this deal in particular, it make it very difficult for Iran to start to build a nuclear weapon under the increase surveillance and with the knowledge that sanctions will snap back immediately if they are found to not be following the deal to the letter.
Thus far, they have been following the agreement according to the most knowledgeable sources.
The terrorism problem that we face will not come in the form of an attack by any State military, it will come from lone-wolf Muslims who live all over the world. They will be able to do a little damage, but they will remain rather ineffective. Their primary motivations for radicalizing and joining ISIS and other extremist groups will be US military intervention into their home country, the murder of their family by drone bombings and things of that nature.
I know you don't like to trust journalists and experts who study these things, but facts actually do matter in this discussion. Iran is demonstrably NOT the threat you think they are, and the primary motivation for terrorist attacks against the United States is US occupation and not the Muslim religion.
These are just facts. They are virtually undisputed among experts who know the first thing about the issue.
What you need to know is that for over twenty years Israel, the Likud party led by Netanyahu, the neo-conservatives and the Christian Right have promoted a concerted campaign of propaganda against Iran and various other middle eastern nations. The Militarists are always in need of an existential threat to justify their agenda of military intervention, world empire, military industrial complex war profiteering and the passing of legislation that tramples on our liberties.
This is the reason why I recommended Gareth Porter's book to you, since he eloquently and systematically documents the origins of this propaganda and it's promulgation over the years.
I don't want to assume anything, but if you are primarily getting your news from right wing talk radio and a few conservative websites, you really owe it to yourself to learn about the anti-war side of the argument. And as demonstrated by the libertarians, not all the antiwar voices are liberals.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 19, 2016, 05:23:33 PM
Now who Pray tale would License, monitor and CONTROL these "Volunteer Police" groups or "Private security forces" hired to maintain "order"? Some GOVT ENTITY would HAVE TO...same with DMV, you have to have some standards and guidelines to grant individual "guards" or "Police" a permit or license and to license the agencies that they work for making sure they have a bond or insurance. Much the same as licencing standards to get a drivers permit or register a vehicle. SO looks like we are back to square one with a Govt or regulatory body.
Most states currently have such rules regulations and licencing bodies, otherwise you;d have lunatics, felons, and completely unqualified persons with no training or education running around armed and enforcing regulations, violating the hell out of everyone's rights and possibly dangerous to innocent parties. You have to have training standards in basic law, the constitution and don;t forget qualifications with a firearm.
As far as "Volunteer forces coming together to protect poorer neighborhoods" Boy are you ever right about that....They are called Gangs....thats is what would happen ala Al Capone and his conquest of Cicereo Illinois or organized crime building their money laundering operation in Las Vegas. Crooks, gang bangers and the rest of the underworld would and could form their own "Volunteer Police forces" and keep out any real law enforcement intended to to thwart their ongoing criminal activities or of course rival criminals.
You really haven't thought this concept out in practical means have you?
Actually, I've thought about this concept a lot. I've read a number of books by economists, political theorists and historians on this subject and I've become convinced that, like all other goods and services, security and dispute resolution can be provided on the market.
I understand this is a hard sell for you. It is for most people, but the reason for this is that they've never considered it before. The school of libertarianism to which I subscribe is called "anarcho-capitalism".
Here are a few books that have convinced me of this position:
"The Production of Security" by Gustave de Molinari.
You can read it online for free:
https://mises.org/library/production-security-0
"The Private Production of Defense" by Hans Hermann-Hoppe:
https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense
I'm not honestly expected you to read through these two books, but I just want you to understand that I didn't just come up with this idea without having thought it through. There are quite a few serious economists and political theorists who subscribe to this view and have dealt with literally every counter-argument you could raise.
Think about this for a moment. Suppose that Texas seceded from the United States of America. Who would defend Texans? Obviously, the people of Texas would assemble their own army and their own means of defense. They suppose different towns in Texas seceded from the State of Texas. Who would defend these towns? The townspeople would come together and work out a means of communal defense. This doesn't automatically mean that all the towns in Texas would suddenly wage war against each other because they are separate and not controlled by a large, centralized political authority. Each jurisdiction would have an incentive to work with other jurisdictions rather than fight with them.
It is extremely costly to wage war. People don't want to wage war if they have to pay for it directly. What people want is basic security so they can be free from robbers, murderers and rapist while they go about their business, earning a living and trying to improve their lives.
The reasons large, centralized States are able to wage large scale wars over and over is because they can hide the direct cost of the war. If they can inflate the currency through a central bank, the cost of military spending is obscured. If you have a progressive income tax, the more wealthy pay a higher rate which means the less wealthy, who make up much more of the population, are not as motivated to change a policy that they don't
seem to be paying for.
None of this exists in a Stateless society. Do you think voluntarily paying customers to a security agency would want to pay their hard-earned dollars so their community could wage war against another community twenty miles away? For what purpose?
There will be problems in any society made up of human beings. Some will be criminally inclined and society will have to find a way to deal with them.
But the anarchist insight is that States don't make this problem better, but they make it far worse. States do NOT, in fact, do a very good job to preventing murders, rapes, and robberies. Look at the murder rate in Chicago right now. The incentive structure of government does not lend itself to public service.
Not only do States do a poor job of preventing private crime, they do a tremendous amount of officially-sanctioned crime. All the criminally-inclined people that would otherwise be engaged in petty small-scale crimes in the private sector are drawn towards government where they can act out their crimes in a legally-sanctioned way and on a MUCH larger scale.
A very important distinction between private crime and State crime is that the general public is opposed to private crime. They are opposed to private robbery, private murder and private rape. They see individuals who act in this manner as evil people that ought to be locked up. But they don't see government robbery and government murder the same way. They see it as somehow legitimate.
If we suddenly start to see government aggression as being just as illegitimate as private aggression, then we'd want to treat government officials as the criminals they are. This revelation leads towards anarchy, whereby society by and large is opposed to all forms of aggression.
Then the overwhelming majority of reasonably decent people can discover ways to deal with the small number of violent people that unfortunately make up a percentage of any society.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 01:57:13 AM
Actually, I've thought about this concept a lot. I've read a number of books by economists, political theorists and historians on this subject and I've become convinced that, like all other goods and services, security and dispute resolution can be provided on the market.
I understand this is a hard sell for you. It is for most people, but the reason for this is that they've never considered it before. The school of libertarianism to which I subscribe is called "anarcho-capitalism".
Here are a few books that have convinced me of this position:
"The Production of Security" by Gustave de Molinari.
You can read it online for free:
https://mises.org/library/production-security-0
"The Private Production of Defense" by Hans Hermann-Hoppe:
https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense
I'm not honestly expected you to read through these two books, but I just want you to understand that I didn't just come up with this idea without having thought it through. There are quite a few serious economists and political theorists who subscribe to this view and have dealt with literally every counter-argument you could raise.
Think about this for a moment. Suppose that Texas seceded from the United States of America. Who would defend Texans? Obviously, the people of Texas would assemble their own army and their own means of defense. They suppose different towns in Texas seceded from the State of Texas. Who would defend these towns? The townspeople would come together and work out a means of communal defense. This doesn't automatically mean that all the towns in Texas would suddenly wage war against each other because they are separate and not controlled by a large, centralized political authority. Each jurisdiction would have an incentive to work with other jurisdictions rather than fight with them.
It is extremely costly to wage war. People don't want to wage war if they have to pay for it directly. What people want is basic security so they can be free from robbers, murderers and rapist while they go about their business, earning a living and trying to improve their lives.
The reasons large, centralized States are able to wage large scale wars over and over is because they can hide the direct cost of the war. If they can inflate the currency through a central bank, the cost of military spending is obscured. If you have a progressive income tax, the more wealthy pay a higher rate which means the less wealthy, who make up much more of the population, are not as motivated to change a policy that they don't seem to be paying for.
None of this exists in a Stateless society. Do you think voluntarily paying customers to a security agency would want to pay their hard-earned dollars so their community could wage war against another community twenty miles away? For what purpose?
There will be problems in any society made up of human beings. Some will be criminally inclined and society will have to find a way to deal with them.
But the anarchist insight is that States don't make this problem better, but they make it far worse. States do NOT, in fact, do a very good job to preventing murders, rapes, and robberies. Look at the murder rate in Chicago right now. The incentive structure of government does not lend itself to public service.
Not only do States do a poor job of preventing private crime, they do a tremendous amount of officially-sanctioned crime. All the criminally-inclined people that would otherwise be engaged in petty small-scale crimes in the private sector are drawn towards government where they can act out their crimes in a legally-sanctioned way and on a MUCH larger scale.
A very important distinction between private crime and State crime is that the general public is opposed to private crime. They are opposed to private robbery, private murder and private rape. They see individuals who act in this manner as evil people that ought to be locked up. But they don't see government robbery and government murder the same way. They see it as somehow legitimate.
If we suddenly start to see government aggression as being just as illegitimate as private aggression, then we'd want to treat government officials as the criminals they are. This revelation leads towards anarchy, whereby society by and large is opposed to all forms of aggression.
Then the overwhelming majority of reasonably decent people can discover ways to deal with the small number of violent people that unfortunately make up a percentage of any society.
And I suppose when the townspeople of Texas would come together they would bring their air force with all the fighter jets they have just collecting dust in the back yards. I suppose all those who have a private navy would bring their battleships too. Would the townspeople be required to supply all of their ammunition? Spare parts for breakdowns? It can see by all the books you have read you have put alot of reasoning into this, but this is not the 1700's. If we were to stop being the worlds police force, who do you think would fill in that void? Hate to say it, but you have it assbackwards, govt. give away programs must be cut first, you have to get the people off of govt. support.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 01:24:43 AM
I think you are turning Iran into an entirely fictitious boogeyman. But it is nice to see that you, at least for a moment, seem to recognize the important principle of "blowback" when you conceded that some Iranians are angry at the United States for the overthrow of their elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh and the installing of the Shah. This anger is not unjustified but this does NOT mean that Iran will launch any sort of attack against the United States militarily, least of all a Nuclear strike.
Do you really think that the Iranian people and their government are suicidal? If they were to ever get a nuclear weapon and they were to even think about launching it at Israel or the United States, we'd retaliate and wipe their entire country off the map in a matter of hours. Hiroshima and Nagasaki will seem like child's play in comparison.
And this is under the very dubious assumption that they either want to, or have the ability to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon under the tremendous international scrutiny they've been subject to.
More importantly, Iran has not waged an aggressive war in modern history. It's leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike".
Here is a great blog post clearly up some of these misconceptions about Iran:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/top-things-you-think-you-know-about.html
Now, with the signing of Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal in exchange for sanctions relief, it makes it FAR more difficult for them to even consider developing a Nuclear weapon. Regardless of your opinion of Obama or of this deal in particular, it make it very difficult for Iran to start to build a nuclear weapon under the increase surveillance and with the knowledge that sanctions will snap back immediately if they are found to not be following the deal to the letter.
Thus far, they have been following the agreement according to the most knowledgeable sources.
The terrorism problem that we face will not come in the form of an attack by any State military, it will come from lone-wolf Muslims who live all over the world. They will be able to do a little damage, but they will remain rather ineffective. Their primary motivations for radicalizing and joining ISIS and other extremist groups will be US military intervention into their home country, the murder of their family by drone bombings and things of that nature.
I know you don't like to trust journalists and experts who study these things, but facts actually do matter in this discussion. Iran is demonstrably NOT the threat you think they are, and the primary motivation for terrorist attacks against the United States is US occupation and not the Muslim religion.
Lets cut through all the BS fencing here and Sum up your entire schpiel
You don't think Iran is a threat to the USA or regional stability/world stability, you didn't address their financial support of terrorism but you apparently dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism altogether as being a viable threat to the USA.
So in light of this fact the USA should disarm, (You said so in previous posts we have no need for a nuclear arsenal) stand down and scale down our military.
Now you just said that Iran isn't suicidal and would not attack us because they are not stupid/suicidal.....now why is that?....because of our MILITARY CAPABILITY (Nukes) and conventional capabilities (Strong Navy) we could out match them NOW in a such a duel this is what you imply....and you are likely correct. I don't want to digress but they attack us and injure us in other ways without going full bore shooting war on us
SO WOULD NOT DISARMAMENT, A LESSENED MILITARY AND LESS A PRESENCE OF US MILITARY TO CONTAIN SUCH FANATICS ENCOURAGE THEIR AGGRESSION. One of the reasons we NEVER went to war during the cold war with the USSR was MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, I beleive in that concept to this day, it worked before it works now and in the future. Thats why these hostile countries use other forms of warfare against us.
So we disarm and they grow their nuclear arsenal. You really want to take that chance that these Theories by these experts of yours would work....I DON'T and neither do most Americans. I don't need to listen to to Lavine Savage, Rush or any of the others (I don't anyhow) for that conclusion.
Now here is what I DO agree on. We could of course cut military spending WASTE AND FRAUD.....some weapon systems are obsolete or ineffective, lets do away with them...as long as the money is reinvested in better more technological weapons.
Second lets slash the Military aid money going to such countries as Pakistan (who isn't our friend) Indonesia and a few other Islamic countries. Right now I'd cut off Turkey in a heart beat.
I do believe we should disentangle ourselves from the middle east, particularly this mess in Syria and Libya, we don't belong there, we can;t trust those assholes we are giving money to and THEY AREN'T Worth it anyhow. However we do need to continue to fight Radical Islamic terrorism, for that we need bases, we need intell from cooperating countries and
the joint operation of their military which have proven effective.
I also go with fewer personnell, more geared toward special operations like US Army Rangers Navy seals etc, supported by the best in technology, logistics and intelligence gathering. Gone are the days when armies lined up, shoulder to shoulder and fought each other with cannon, musket or tank and machine gun. Our military must adapt with the times.
We need small counter terror forces backed up by the best in technology. Wars of the future will be fought with the latest technology, long range drones, electromagnetic pulse weapons, Satelitte guided weapons etc.
Last, if you really want to save money lets start by cutting off aide money to many countries like those in South America, Mexico, and of course The Palestinians.
But lets NOT sacrifice our military in the name of creating some sort of isolationist La la land where no one has it in for us whether it is "blowback" or a world conquest agenda.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 01:57:13 AM
Actually, I've thought about this concept a lot. I've read a number of books by economists, political theorists and historians on this subject and I've become convinced that, like all other goods and services, security and dispute resolution can be provided on the market.
I understand this is a hard sell for you.
Yeah that's the problem you Thought about it a lot and you have read a lot of books written by people who have done nothing than write a book. You don;t listen to people like me who have a vast amount of experience in these matters.
Thats why what they (you) are selling doesn't sale with me.
You didn't address licensing and regulation of these private forces so they don;t grow into nothing more than armed gangs protecting the territorial imperative and turning on the very people they are hired to protect.
You didn't address the criminal element which would have their own security forces to do whatever they want. Once again my issue that in such cases the strongest and most violent people would end up in control of neighborhoods, cities etc left to their own devices. I keep telling you, Human nature trumps whatever theory these authors come up with, and if you want evidence of that just go to your history book, or better yet take a good hard look at what has become of some inner city neighborhoods...
.the cops Ain't in charge. THATS WHY CHICAGO HAS SO MANY MURDERS.
Now here is something I'd would like to see, IE private forces that augment Law enforcement given letters of Marque from State or Federal Govt to address the problems of criminal gangs etc.
These would be licensed organizations working hand in hand with existing Law Enforcment agencies, made up of experienced qualified persons who would be paid based soley on the amount of assets they seize from criminal gangs, smugglers and drug dealers. I'd turn them loose on the borders on the high seas around our nation and I'd wager that within a year you'd see less illegal immigration, less drug smuggling and less terrorist infiltration.
Quote from: s3779m on September 20, 2016, 04:55:01 AM
And I suppose when the townspeople of Texas would come together they would bring their air force with all the fighter jets they have just collecting dust in the back yards. I suppose all those who have a private navy would bring their battleships too. Would the townspeople be required to supply all of their ammunition? Spare parts for breakdowns? It can see by all the books you have read you have put alot of reasoning into this, but this is not the 1700's. If we were to stop being the worlds police force, who do you think would fill in that void? Hate to say it, but you have it assbackwards, govt. give away programs must be cut first, you have to get the people off of govt. support.
Private entrepreneurs will provide the service of communal defense against foreign Nation States if it is warranted. The market is not a central plan, it is a discovery process.
You should remember that there are a great number of nations around the world that have successfully defended themselves from foreign invaders for centuries while spending a very small fraction of what the United States spends. Given the greater productivity and efficiency of the private market, we can expect reasonable and sufficient defense services to be cheaper to produce than any State's military budget.
Being "the world's policemen" does not project strength and add to the national defense. It financially drains a country and weakens their defense in the long run. If you have a free economy and you grow very wealthy, this is the best defense there is. Poorer economies with a military stretched too thin cannot maintain a long and protracted military conflict, while countries that are extremely wealthy could if they needed to.
Regardless of what sort of private armies or security forces would exist in peacetime in a Stateless society, if our collective security was severely threatened by a foreign power, the market would nimbly adjust and produce the quantity and quality of planes, submarines, missiles and so forth to come out ahead in a prolonged war if it came to that.
If Russia or China were foolish enough to maintain military bases around the world and occupy foreign lands, provided they aren't OUR lands, then they would only be weakening their own economies with such needless adventurism.
The reality is that the world is not as dangerous as you seem to think it is. The United States military is a danger to OTHER countries far more than they are a danger to us.
Honestly, I'm not really adamant about converting you all to anarchism. This is a hard sell for most people and you'd need to read quite a bit about the arguments to understand how and why it would work. Frankly, if you could be consistent small-government Constitutionalist libertarians, I'd consider that a great start and we can be tremendous allies against Leviathan.
Yes I agree we should cut Welfare spending. But do you really think that cutting poor folks off of food stamps is a more important priority than closing down military bases in at least
some of the 170 countries where we have them? This seems like a very strange set of priorities.
But what about Crony Capitalist Welfare in the Military Industrial Complex? Not all of this military spending actually goes to bolstering our defense. So much of this money goes to absolutely unnecessary airplanes and tanks that even the military generals say they don't want. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and the rest of these companies are hooked on the government dole and rational decisions are NOT being made about what is in our best interests for our national defense.
Just to give you a helpful tip, supporting this kind of crony capitalism and military spending while saying we need to cut welfare for the poor and middle class is one reason why people are distrustful of people who say they support smaller government.
It is good politics, aside from simply being the right thing to do, to start with slashing military spending and corporate welfare
first,
then cutting entitlement programs and welfare for the poor.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 20, 2016, 05:06:53 AM
Lets cut through all the BS fencing here and Sum up your entire schpiel
You don't think Iran is a threat to the USA or regional stability/world stability, you didn't address their financial support of terrorism but you apparently dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism altogether as being a viable threat to the USA.
So in light of this fact the USA should disarm, (You said so in previous posts we have no need for a nuclear arsenal) stand down and scale down our military.
Now you just said that Iran isn't suicidal and would not attack us because they are not stupid/suicidal.....now why is that?....because of our MILITARY CAPABILITY (Nukes) and conventional capabilities (Strong Navy) we could out match them NOW in a such a duel this is what you imply....and you are likely correct. I don't want to digress but they attack us and injure us in other ways without going full bore shooting war on us
SO WOULD NOT DISARMAMENT, A LESSENED MILITARY AND LESS A PRESENCE OF US MILITARY TO CONTAIN SUCH FANATICS ENCOURAGE THEIR AGGRESSION. One of the reasons we NEVER went to war during the cold war with the USSR was MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, I beleive in that concept to this day, it worked before it works now and in the future. Thats why these hostile countries use other forms of warfare against us.
So we disarm and they grow their nuclear arsenal. You really want to take that chance that these Theories by these experts of yours would work....I DON'T and neither do most Americans. I don't need to listen to to Lavine Savage, Rush or any of the others (I don't anyhow) for that conclusion.
Now here is what I DO agree on. We could of course cut military spending WASTE AND FRAUD.....some weapon systems are obsolete or ineffective, lets do away with them...as long as the money is reinvested in better more technological weapons.
Second lets slash the Military aid money going to such countries as Pakistan (who isn't our friend) Indonesia and a few other Islamic countries. Right now I'd cut off Turkey in a heart beat.
I do believe we should disentangle ourselves from the middle east, particularly this mess in Syria and Libya, we don't belong there, we can;t trust those assholes we are giving money to and THEY AREN'T Worth it anyhow. However we do need to continue to fight Radical Islamic terrorism, for that we need bases, we need intell from cooperating countries and
the joint operation of their military which have proven effective.
I also go with fewer personnell, more geared toward special operations like US Army Rangers Navy seals etc, supported by the best in technology, logistics and intelligence gathering. Gone are the days when armies lined up, shoulder to shoulder and fought each other with cannon, musket or tank and machine gun. Our military must adapt with the times.
We need small counter terror forces backed up by the best in technology. Wars of the future will be fought with the latest technology, long range drones, electromagnetic pulse weapons, Satelitte guided weapons etc.
Last, if you really want to save money lets start by cutting off aide money to many countries like those in South America, Mexico, and of course The Palestinians.
But lets NOT sacrifice our military in the name of creating some sort of isolationist La la land where no one has it in for us whether it is "blowback" or a world conquest agenda.
Okay, we've got some common ground. Today's military conflicts and national security threats are far different than in decades past. Smaller special forces and an increased reliance on technology and pinpoint accuracy defensive weapons technology should be relied upon and the obsolete and outdated tanks, piloted fighter jets, naval vessels and such should be phased out. We agree on that.
I don't think I ever said that we had no need for a nuclear arsenal. What I did say was that we can and should be reducing our nuclear arsenal. The end goal should be the elimination of nuclear weapons, but this has to be done in conjunction with other nations. If we unilaterally got rid of our entire nuclear arsenal, it would put us at tremendous risk against nations that still have them. So I'd favor improved diplomatic relations with Russia and mutual efforts to reduce our nuclear stockpile in a coordinated effort.
This is an extremely important issue. It has been somewhat forgotten since the Cold War but these weapons literally have the capacity to end life on earth. There is nothing more important than reducing and eventually eliminating them from the face of the earth.
Instead of obsessing on a fictitious nuclear weapon that Iran doesn't have and is not pursuing, we should be focused on our nuclear weapons, Russia's nuclear weapons, Israel's nuclear weapons and working towards scaling them back as quickly as possible.
I agree with you that mutually assured destruction works, but doesn't that undermine your argument that Iran is a grave threat to the United States or Israel? Even if they DID manage to acquire a nuclear weapon in a hypothetical scenario, why would they launch it against Israel or the US if it certainly would result in their complete destruction?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AM
Private entrepreneurs will provide the service of communal defense against foreign Nation States if it is warranted. The market is not a central plan, it is a discovery process.
So do these straw men, excuse me these "private entrepreneurs" have a military ready or will they have to buy one?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMYou should remember that there are a great number of nations around the world that have successfully defended themselves from foreign invaders for centuries while spending a very small fraction of what the United States spends. Given the greater productivity and efficiency of the private market, we can expect reasonable and sufficient defense services to be cheaper to produce than any State's military budget.
Centuries ago a war could be fought without a modern military, times have changed
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMBeing "the world's policemen" does not project strength and add to the national defense. It financially drains a country and weakens their defense in the long run. If you have a free economy and you grow very wealthy, this is the best defense there is. Poorer economies with a military stretched too thin cannot maintain a long and protracted military conflict, while countries that are extremely wealthy could if they needed to.
And if we allow russia to police the world, that would strengthen us how? dont you think russia would charge for that protection?
Quote from: jrodefeld link=topic=26152.msg316068#msg3Regardless of what sort of private armies or securi16068 date=1474384785ty forces would exist in peacetime in a Stateless society, if our collective security was severely threatened by a foreign power, the market would nimbly adjust and produce the quantity and quality of planes, submarines, missiles and so forth to come out ahead in a prolonged war if it came to that.
Once again, who would police this private army, in other words who but the man who pays them does a private army answer to?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMIf Russia or China were foolish enough to maintain military bases around the world and occupy foreign lands, provided they aren't OUR lands, then they would only be weakening their own economies with such needless adventurism.
What makes you think they would occupy them for free????
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMThe reality is that the world is not as dangerous as you seem to think it is. The United States military is a danger to OTHER countries far more than they are a danger to us.
The world is not as dangerous as YOU think because we have the best military!
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMHonestly, I'm not really adamant about converting you all to anarchism. This is a hard sell for most people and you'd need to read quite a bit about the arguments to understand how and why it would work. Frankly, if you could be consistent small-government Constitutionalist libertarians, I'd consider that a great start and we can be tremendous allies against Leviathan.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMYes I agree we should cut Welfare spending. But do you really think that cutting poor folks off of food stamps is a more important priority than closing down military bases in at least some of the 170 countries where we have them? This seems like a very strange set of priorities.
Who said anything about the "poor" being cut anything? Our entitlement programs are out of control and we should be sending our $ to those who are in need and not in want. Our programs have led to generations being on welfare
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMBut what about Crony Capitalist Welfare in the Military Industrial Complex? Not all of this military spending actually goes to bolstering our defense. So much of this money goes to absolutely unnecessary airplanes and tanks that even the military generals say they don't want. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and the rest of these companies are hooked on the government dole and rational decisions are NOT being made about what is in our best interests for our national defense.
The answer is to hold those accountable who cheat the government not do away with the military.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMJust to give you a helpful tip, supporting this kind of crony capitalism and military spending while saying we need to cut welfare for the poor and middle class is one reason why people are distrustful of people who say they support smaller government.
Please refer to above.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:19:45 AMIt is good politics, aside from simply being the right thing to do, to start with slashing military spending and corporate welfare first, then cutting entitlement programs and welfare for the poor.
Corporate welfare?? why should a business even pay taxes? Too many of your ideas seem to come right out of the liberal playbook
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 20, 2016, 08:37:50 AM
I don't think I ever said that we had no need for a nuclear arsenal. What I did say was that we can and should be reducing our nuclear arsenal. The end goal should be the elimination of nuclear weapons, but this has to be done in conjunction with other nations. If we unilaterally got rid of our entire nuclear arsenal, it would put us at tremendous risk against nations that still have them. So I'd favor improved diplomatic relations with Russia and mutual efforts to reduce our nuclear stockpile in a coordinated effort.
Instead of obsessing on a fictitious nuclear weapon that Iran doesn't have and is not pursuing, we should be focused on our nuclear weapons, Russia's nuclear weapons, Israel's nuclear weapons and working towards scaling them back as quickly as possible.
I agree with you that mutually assured destruction works, but doesn't that undermine your argument that Iran is a grave threat to the United States or Israel? Even if they DID manage to acquire a nuclear weapon in a hypothetical scenario, why would they launch it against Israel or the US if it certainly would result in their complete destruction?
It sounds like you want the US, Russia and Israel to disarm.... but not Iran.....OR PAKISTAN.... :blink: Iran may (or may not) have a Nuke but you can bet they will get one in the future.
But like I told you before Israel (or the US) is not going to be the
immediate target ......THE GULF STATES AND SAUDI WILL BE. Once Iran has their nuke (s) they will begin their intended conquest of the Gulf down through Yemen. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE the threat level of IRAN, they will start WW3 given the chance.
Their goal is to first control ISLAM and impose their version.... Shi'a destroying Sunni.
But first a few things have to happen. The US and other allied nations has to withdraw or be forced out of the Gulf, the very type of withdrawal you are suggesting would be just what Iran is banking on. Right now Iran is contained they can't get to Israel through the north (Turkey, SYria) Or the West (Gulf states Saudi and Iraq) and if they try it through the south they have to run the gauntlet of US and Allied ships through THREE CHOKE POINTS....Straits of Hormuz, Gulf of Aden and most importantly The Suez....Egypt....and Egypt is on US/Israel side right now. Once they are in control of two of those choke points they are in a better position stratigically control
the flow of oil as well as other
marine commerce which MUST pass through the Gulf of Arden to reach the Suez.Like it or not, standing down, withdrawal from the middle east scaling down weapons ESPECIALLY OUR NAVAL CAPABILITIES is the worst thing that can happen.
Personally, I don't want to see Israel disarm at all, once they do...they are all dead. The fact that Israel has and WILL use Nukes if attacked is likely the only thing preventing WW3 right now...don't be too shocked to learn that Russia has provided Israel with at least some of their nukes and other weapons.
The other issue we have is that perhaps with enough technology Nukes might become obsolete or we might develop technology that would make delivery systems null and void, this is why I say we should sink more money into developing electromagnetic pulse weapons rather than spending money on tanks, artillery and other conventional weapons. SO sorry but military spending is vital to remain technologically superior and maintain that all important BALANCE OF POWER.
Quote from: s3779m on September 20, 2016, 05:04:25 PM
So do these straw men, excuse me these "private entrepreneurs" have a military ready or will they have to buy one? Centuries ago a war could be fought without a modern military, times have changed
And if we allow russia to police the world, that would strengthen us how? dont you think russia would charge for that protection?
Once again, who would police this private army, in other words who but the man who pays them does a private army answer to?
What makes you think they would occupy them for free????
The world is not as dangerous as YOU think because we have the best military!
Who said anything about the "poor" being cut anything? Our entitlement programs are out of control and we should be sending our $ to those who are in need and not in want. Our programs have led to generations being on welfare
The answer is to hold those accountable who cheat the government not do away with the military.
Please refer to above.
Corporate welfare?? why should a business even pay taxes? Too many of your ideas seem to come right out of the liberal playbook
I'm an anarchist, remember? I don't think anyone should be paying taxes. What I mean by "Corporate welfare" are subsidies, favorable regulations which distort the market in favor of a politically-connected elite and no-bid government contracts. If the government grants tax breaks to businessmen and corporations, that is all to the good. Taxes should be lowered for everyone.
Are you aware that Russia has the Gross National Product of Italy? They have a large stockpile of Nuclear Weapons, and a reasonably large military but they are FAR from the sort of dangerous nation that the Right seem to think they are.
Are you arguing that the United States needs to maintain bases in 170 countries around the world and "project strength" through the maintenance of a world empire because if we didn't, someone else might? Is that your argument?
Any country or non-State terrorist group might threaten our safety in the future. Whether we have a State or are living in a State-less society, we'd want to make sure that we have adequate security and adequate intelligence to protect ourselves against potential threats. It clearly does NOT enhance our national security to maintain bases around the world and intervene into the affairs of other countries.
If we merely pursue peace, commerce and honest friendship with others but have entangling alliances with none, as the Founders advocated, then we would foster more harmony among other nations and ourselves. By maintaining an empire and "projecting strength", we generate resentment which manifests in the growth of terrorism and the further buildup of the militaries in other nations who see us as a threat to their security.
I proposed that we could immediately cut the military budget by 50% without reducing our ability to defend ourselves one bit. Do you agree with this or not?
For whatever reason, you seem to think that nearly all of this money is worth it if only to prove that we're tough to the rest of the world by having such a massive and extravagant military.
A majority of this money is spent in ways that weaken us rather than strengthen us.
Here is a concrete example. Lockheed Martin has built an aircraft that is completely useless. It doesn't work, the military doesn't need it and it has cost an estimated 2 Trillion dollars. That is not a typo. A single worthless aircraft has cost the US government two trillion dollars.
QuoteAt an estimated lifetime development, production, operational and maintenance cost of $2 trillion or more (adjusted for inflation), the F-35 perhaps most of all symbolizes notorious Pentagon waste, fraud and abuse – ripping off taxpayers, using the nation's resources irresponsibly, at the expense of vital homeland needs.
Pentagon hype calls the F-35 "a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment" – for Army, Navy and Marine Corps use, as well as for selected allies.
After a decade of development and limited production, it still doesn't work as intended. In service since the 1970s, the F-16 outclasses it. In simulated dogfights, an F-35 test pilot called it "at a distinct energy disadvantage."
The Pentagon's fifth-generation warplane performs worse than one of its current mainstays it's designed to replace. It remains a troubled aircraft with unresolved problems, a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle, a colossal waste of national resources.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martins-f-35-lightning-ii-boondoggle-a-2-trillion-pentagon-waste/5504849
This is precisely what the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about produces. Unimaginable waste and fraud.
As for private armies in the market, the consumers would police the military. The consumers would pay their salaries voluntarily after all. I would imagine that an armed, private militia would emerge. Like in Switzerland, military age males would agree to defend the society in battle if they were ever to be invaded or attacked by a foreign army. Maybe young men would learn basic skills in owning, operating and maintaining firearms in case of such an event.
Then I'd imagine that private entrepreneurs would maintain small but nimble stockpiles of heavy duty weapons, insured on the private market of course, to be deployed if they were ever truly needed. Their salaries would be paid by communities who valued the safety and security they would provide. 99% of the time, their existence and maintenance would be an insurance policy and they would not be deployed in combat around the world.
Furthermore, security agencies would have the incentive to work out innovative ways to keep the peace and AVOID international conflicts and military battles. Different avenues for diplomacy would be pursued since peaceful solutions are better for a society than expensive and deadly military confrontations.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 21, 2016, 05:07:35 AM
It sounds like you want the US, Russia and Israel to disarm.... but not Iran.....OR PAKISTAN.... :blink: Iran may (or may not) have a Nuke but you can bet they will get one in the future. But like I told you before Israel (or the US) is not going to be the immediate target ......THE GULF STATES AND SAUDI WILL BE. Once Iran has their nuke (s) they will begin their intended conquest of the Gulf down through Yemen. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE the threat level of IRAN, they will start WW3 given the chance. Their goal is to first control ISLAM and impose their version.... Shi'a destroying Sunni.
But first a few things have to happen. The US and other allied nations has to withdraw or be forced out of the Gulf, the very type of withdrawal you are suggesting would be just what Iran is banking on. Right now Iran is contained they can't get to Israel through the north (Turkey, SYria) Or the West (Gulf states Saudi and Iraq) and if they try it through the south they have to run the gauntlet of US and Allied ships through THREE CHOKE POINTS....Straits of Hormuz, Gulf of Aden and most importantly The Suez....Egypt....and Egypt is on US/Israel side right now. Once they are in control of two of those choke points they are in a better position stratigically control the flow of oil as well as other marine commerce which MUST pass through the Gulf of Arden to reach the Suez.
Like it or not, standing down, withdrawal from the middle east scaling down weapons ESPECIALLY OUR NAVAL CAPABILITIES is the worst thing that can happen.
Personally, I don't want to see Israel disarm at all, once they do...they are all dead. The fact that Israel has and WILL use Nukes if attacked is likely the only thing preventing WW3 right now...don't be too shocked to learn that Russia has provided Israel with at least some of their nukes and other weapons.
The other issue we have is that perhaps with enough technology Nukes might become obsolete or we might develop technology that would make delivery systems null and void, this is why I say we should sink more money into developing electromagnetic pulse weapons rather than spending money on tanks, artillery and other conventional weapons. SO sorry but military spending is vital to remain technologically superior and maintain that all important BALANCE OF POWER.
How much more money does the United States have to spend on it's military than all other nations around the globe to give you a sense of security? What is the limit?
I'm not arguing that the money that we do spend on our military should not be spent differently, or that developing some new weapons and technology is not required. What I am saying is that our foreign policy itself should be changed.
The weapons and technology that we develop should be used for defensive purposes as a deterrent. We shouldn't just be supplying an endless stream of new toys for military Generals to use when invading, bombing, overthrowing and occupying foreign nations that did not attack us and did not threaten our national security.
Remember that a lot of this military technology trickles down into the hands of our police, who are starting to see the United States as just another occupied battlefield.
Here is a concrete proposal. We should close down foreign military bases and bring our troops home. Even if you don't think we should close down ALL of our bases, surely you can agree to closing down most of them. Then our foreign policy should be re-focused on providing for defense but staying out of interfering in the internal affairs of foreign nations.
If our foreign policy
focus was merely changed, we'd not need to spend nearly as much money. It cost far less to defend a country against all potential threats than it does to militarily dominate the globe.
You keep acting as if I'm suggesting that the United States unilaterally disarm and get rid of ALL it's nuclear weapons while other countries maintain theirs. I want all nations to drawn down their nuclear weapons and eventually eliminate them completely. And I don't want any non-nuclear countries to develop them either.
But the United States and Russia have so many more nuclear arms than all other nations on the globe that we could drawn down our nuclear arms drastically while still maintaining far more than any other nuclear power.
Do you really think it matters to our national defense whether we could blow up the world five times over or ten?
No I don't fear Iran because they haven't started a war in the modern era. They have NOT demonstrated that they are seeking to wage the sort of military conquest strategy that you claim they are.
First of all, there is no ambiguity over whether Iran has a nuclear weapon. They DON'T have a nuclear weapon, they aren't even close to being able to and, most importantly they have not pursued a nuclear weapon.
That last point is very important. Despite what you've been told, Iran has not seriously pursued the development of a nuclear weapon in the past quarter of a century, if ever. Again, I refer you to Gather Porter's book Manufactured Crisis.
Their nuclear program was focused towards peaceful purposes. Medical isotopes and clean power, mainly.
Iran has been under such tremendous scrutiny over the past twenty years and have been subject to many, many inspections by the UN. They have never proven that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon in all that time.
I want to provide some additional evidence to bolster my claims about Iran and their fictitious Nuclear weapons program.
Here is an excellent interview with Gareth Porter on the subject. This was published in The American Conservative:
QuoteWhat do most of us really know about the Iranian nuclear program? After a decade of hearing that Iran is just one year from getting the bomb, and that its leaders are radically bent on the destruction of Israel and its Western allies, no one could be blamed for thinking that Iran really wants (or already has) atomic weapons.
Gareth Porter knows the narrative. He has worked tirelessly to pursue the truth of the matter. His conclusion: Iran never had a nuclear weapons program and, frankly, it doesn't want one.
Can he prove it? Well he's got 300 pages representing at least six years worth of work to try to get you over to his side. Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, published this year by Just World Books, is not just some ham-fisted polemic. It's a journalist's read: dense with interviews, reports, citations, notes. He finds obscure sources that would otherwise be lost to history. He pokes holes in unquestioned news stories, and exposes what he believes is an orchestrated campaign by the U.S. and its ally, Israel, dating back to the 1979 Islamic revolution, to prevent Iran from developing a non-weaponized nuclear power program.
His conclusions fly in the face of nearly every establishment view on the subject, from the neoconservative hawks to the liberal humanitarians that inhabit the Democratic Party in Washington. Porter's position, no matter now doggedly researched, is anathema to current Middle East policy.
Of course, he's not the only one to reach this conclusion. Paul Pillar, a National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East between 2000 and 2005, tells TAC that Porter is on the right track. "All indications are that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon," he said in an e-mail. "Gareth Porter's book provides a useful service in demonstrating that common worse-case assumptions about Iranian motivations and objectives are invalid."
.
Four paragraphs or text not exceeding 200 words is considered fair usage.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:48:27 PM
I want to provide some additional evidence to bolster my claims about Iran and their fictitious Nuclear weapons program.
Here is an excellent interview with Gareth Porter on the subject. This was published in The American Conservative:
Four paragraphs or text not exceeding 200 words is considered fair usage.
You really believe that horseshit? Iran is sitting on Billions of barrels of Oil and they want to develop nuclear energy????
Yeah, right, I got some Ocean front Property in Nevada I want to sell you....cheap.
Simply put, I don;t believe Iran, I don't believe these people making these claims and to place any amount of trust in such is a fools errand.
Iran has time and again demonstrated aggression towards the US, Israel, various Gulf state nations, they have armed terrorists, financed terrorism, killed American troops in Iraq, previously tampered with our economy smuggling billions of dollars worth of counterfeit bills into our system so that we had to totally redesign our money. Conspired with Venezuela's arch Fiend Hugo Chavez selling him arms to foolishly threatened his neighbors and the USA with and on and on and on. Wake Up, Wise up and remain alert.
If you really want to scale spending down lets stop giving aide money to the Palestinians to buy rockets etc from Iran, that's just one country to begin with, Pakistan and Turkey need to watch their asses too.
You want all nations to disarm...great....you think you are going to get Russia to do that? Where would the weapons go?
The last time those asshole's "disarmed" the Former Soviet union flooded the black market with their obsolete systems.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PM
I'm an anarchist, remember? I don't think anyone should be paying taxes. What I mean by "Corporate welfare" are subsidies, favorable regulations which distort the market in favor of a politically-connected elite and no-bid government contracts. If the government grants tax breaks to businessmen and corporations, that is all to the good. Taxes should be lowered for everyone.
Are you aware that Russia has the Gross National Product of Italy? They have a large stockpile of Nuclear Weapons, and a reasonably large military but they are FAR from the sort of dangerous nation that the Right seem to think they are.
Are you arguing that the United States needs to maintain bases in 170 countries around the world and "project strength" through the maintenance of a world empire because if we didn't, someone else might? Is that your argument?
Did not say that at all, what I said was somebody is going to be the worlds policeman, that is a role we should not nor do our allies want us to give up.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PMAny country or non-State terrorist group might threaten our safety in the future. Whether we have a State or are living in a State-less society, we'd want to make sure that we have adequate security and adequate intelligence to protect ourselves against potential threats. It clearly does NOT enhance our national security to maintain bases around the world and intervene into the affairs of other countries.
You are correct any group can threaten us or invade in the future, that's why it is not a good idea to cut the military and rely on a "private army" that will only answer to the rich person who is paying them
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PMIf we merely pursue peace, commerce and honest friendship with others but have entangling alliances with none, as the Founders advocated, then we would foster more harmony among other nations and ourselves. By maintaining an empire and "projecting strength", we generate resentment which manifests in the growth of terrorism and the further buildup of the militaries in other nations who see us as a threat to their security.
I proposed that we could immediately cut the military budget by 50% without reducing our ability to defend ourselves one bit. Do you agree with this or not?no
For whatever reason, you seem to think that nearly all of this money is worth it if only to prove that we're tough to the rest of the world by having such a massive and extravagant military.
A majority of this money is spent in ways that weaken us rather than strengthen us.
Once again, never said that. To put it another way, to use an old saying: if you want peace, prepare for war. Having the best military in the world is a great deterrent against invasion.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PMHere is a concrete example. Lockheed Martin has built an aircraft that is completely useless. It doesn't work, the military doesn't need it and it has cost an estimated 2 Trillion dollars. That is not a typo. A single worthless aircraft has cost the US government two trillion dollars.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martins-f-35-lightning-ii-boondoggle-a-2-trillion-pentagon-waste/5504849
This is precisely what the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about produces. Unimaginable waste and fraud.
When fraud is found it needs to be cut out, but that is not a argument for cutting 50%
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 21, 2016, 01:23:08 PMAs for private armies in the market, the consumers would police the military. The consumers would pay their salaries voluntarily after all. I would imagine that an armed, private militia would emerge. Like in Switzerland, military age males would agree to defend the society in battle if they were ever to be invaded or attacked by a foreign army. Maybe young men would learn basic skills in owning, operating and maintaining firearms in case of such an event.
Then I'd imagine that private entrepreneurs would maintain small but nimble stockpiles of heavy duty weapons, insured on the private market of course, to be deployed if they were ever truly needed. Their salaries would be paid by communities who valued the safety and security they would provide. 99% of the time, their existence and maintenance would be an insurance policy and they would not be deployed in combat around the world.
Furthermore, security agencies would have the incentive to work out innovative ways to keep the peace and AVOID international conflicts and military battles. Different avenues for diplomacy would be pursued since peaceful solutions are better for a society than expensive and deadly military confrontations.
Again, who would police this group of vigilantes? You propose we pay a army who answers to the rich who are paying them. Your whole argument here is based off assumptions that if we are invaded we would be able to scrape together an army to protect us. You are willing to destroy our armed forces for this?
Why is jrodefeld still here?
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 22, 2016, 04:29:34 AM
Why is jrodefeld still here?
Entertainment? Actually I have learned that if all libertarian's think like he does, or if his thinking is a decent representative of the the party, then I don't care to have anything to do with them. They would hurt the military more than obama did, if that is possible. Saved me the time that would have been spent checking them out.
Quote from: s3779m on September 22, 2016, 05:38:12 AM
Entertainment? Actually I have learned that if all libertarian's think like he does, or if his thinking is a decent representative of the the party, then I don't care to have anything to do with them. They would hurt the military more than obama did, if that is possible. Saved me the time that would have been spent checking them out.
That's more or less why I left it to hardier souls like you to dissect his spiel.
Now that you've chewed him like a dog's hard-biscuit, can I now hear your second for the motion from the floor, by old sup there?
Quote from: s3779m on September 22, 2016, 05:38:12 AM
Entertainment? Actually I have learned that if all libertarian's think like he does, or if his thinking is a decent representative of the the party, then I don't care to have anything to do with them. They would hurt the military more than obama did, if that is possible. Saved me the time that would have been spent checking them out.
Out of curiosity, can you explain how Obama "hurt" the military? I hear this all the time from the Right. Our military has been "gutted", we need to "rebuild" our military, etc.
The truth of the matter is that military spending has continued to grow every year of Obama's presidency.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. By the way, I'm "still here" because I like to see what different ideological groups tend to think about a variety of subjects. Maybe you'll learn a little bit about libertarian thought and I'll learn something about conservatism.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:04:53 AM
The truth of the matter is that military spending has continued to grow every year of Obama's presidency.
Really? Then there was no sequester for the military? Correctamundo?
Other ways the military was hurt:
Rules of engagement: which ties our military's hands
A 1.8% pay raise.
Furthermore, I fail to see how you cannot understand the link between military spending, war and the growth of government domestically. I've heard many of you describe yourselves as "Constitutional Conservatives". How can you reduce government to it's Constitutionally limited size and scope if you cannot fathom significant cuts to military spending?
Since George W. Bush declared a "war on terror", look at the growth of the Federal government. Under the pretext of protecting us from terrorism, we've witnessed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act and unprecedented domestic surveillance. Furthermore, we've seen the militarization of our local police, expanded SWAT raids of domestic homes, extra-judicial executions of American citizens and so many more direct assaults on our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.
The primary reason they were able to get away with this massive growth of government is that they convinced us that terrorism represents a grave existential threat to our very way of life and we need to sacrifice some of our liberties in order to maintain safety.
I have a couple of simple questions.
Do you describe yourself as a Constitutional Conservative?
If I'm interpreting this position correctly, it would mean that you think we need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government until it does only those functions expressly delegated in the Constitution. In other words, you believe in "original intent", rather than in the Progressive notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that can be re-interpreted to permit any government action.
Is this a coherent articulation of your views generally?
Then why do you arbitrarily eschew the founders advice to avoid entangling alliances and avoid going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy"?
If you're claim is that the world is much more different than it was in the founders time which requires a vastly different foreign policy, isn't this exactly what the Progressives argue when they try to justify ignoring other parts of the Constitution?
Progressives who argue for gun control say that the founders could not have envisioned the type of "assault" weapons we currently have, so we need to disregard the Second Amendment. How can you oppose this position coherently if you argue the same thing regarding foreign policy?
Furthermore, it has long been a stated tactic of Big Government Conservatives to distract the conservative base with a purported foreign enemy so they don't focus on cutting government at home, but instead expanding government abroad in the name of safety and security. William F. Buckley made this very argument during the Cold War. He criticized the Old Right for their "isolationism" and their opposition to FDR's New Deal and instead argued that they should put aside their calls for repeal of big government to focus on an arms buildup to defeat the Soviet menace.
You cannot simultaneously believe in small government AND believe in the sort of military spending, world empire and interventionist foreign policy that you seem to support.
These are mutually exclusive positions that cannot coexist.
I'm fascinated by this apparent cognitive dissonance. I'd like to have an honest discussion with ya'll about this.
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 09:20:21 AM
Really? Then there was no sequester for the military? Correctamundo?
Other ways the military was hurt:
Rules of engagement: which ties our military's hands
A 1.8% pay raise.
The argument of sequestration as regards to military spending was a fake one. The proposed "cuts" were merely cuts to the proposed increases in the budget. For example, if the military wanted an increased budget of $80 billion dollars in the next year, and the Congress only permitted an increase of $60 billion dollars, they would call that a "cut" in spending. In actuality, they are getting a massive increase in their budget, just not quite as massive as they would like.
Here is a link that gives a bit more detail on this:
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/12/10/military-budget-deal-skips-sequestration-erases-22-billion-in-cuts/
You should know about this government double-speak. Every normal person would regard a cut in spending as a reduction in total spending from the previous year. Yet the government calls a huge increase in spending a "cut" if it is not quite as massive an increase as they would have liked.
As far as "rules of engagement" you'll have to be more specific as you what you are referring to. If you mean rules which attempt to limit the number of war crimes we allow our soldiers to commit, how are such limitations problematic? Surely you don't support war crimes, torture, and the murder of civilians?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:34:44 AM
Furthermore, I fail to see how you cannot understand the link between military spending, war and the growth of government domestically. I've heard many of you describe yourselves as "Constitutional Conservatives". How can you reduce government to it's Constitutionally limited size and scope if you cannot fathom significant cuts to military spending?
Since George W. Bush declared a "war on terror", look at the growth of the Federal government. Under the pretext of protecting us from terrorism, we've witnessed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act and unprecedented domestic surveillance. Furthermore, we've seen the militarization of our local police, expanded SWAT raids of domestic homes, extra-judicial executions of American citizens and so many more direct assaults on our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.
The primary reason they were able to get away with this massive growth of government is that they convinced us that terrorism represents a grave existential threat to our very way of life and we need to sacrifice some of our liberties in order to maintain safety.
I have a couple of simple questions.
Do you describe yourself as a Constitutional Conservative?
If I'm interpreting this position correctly, it would mean that you think we need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government until it does only those functions expressly delegated in the Constitution. In other words, you believe in "original intent", rather than in the Progressive notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that can be re-interpreted to permit any government action.
Is this a coherent articulation of your views generally?
Then why do you arbitrarily eschew the founders advice to avoid entangling alliances and avoid going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy"?
If you're claim is that the world is much more different than it was in the founders time which requires a vastly different foreign policy, isn't this exactly what the Progressives argue when they try to justify ignoring other parts of the Constitution?
Progressives who argue for gun control say that the founders could not have envisioned the type of "assault" weapons we currently have, so we need to disregard the Second Amendment. How can you oppose this position coherently if you argue the same thing regarding foreign policy?
Furthermore, it has long been a stated tactic of Big Government Conservatives to distract the conservative base with a purported foreign enemy so they don't focus on cutting government at home, but instead expanding government abroad in the name of safety and security. William F. Buckley made this very argument during the Cold War. He criticized the Old Right for their "isolationism" and their opposition to FDR's New Deal and instead argued that they should put aside their calls for repeal of big government to focus on an arms buildup to defeat the Soviet menace.
You cannot simultaneously believe in small government AND believe in the sort of military spending, world empire and interventionist foreign policy that you seem to support.
These are mutually exclusive positions that cannot coexist.
I'm fascinated by this apparent cognitive dissonance. I'd like to have an honest discussion with ya'll about this.
I have a friend who was a ranger. He tells the story of a guy who used to go out of his house every day and spray the passing convoy with bullets, then he'd drop his weapon, making him unarmed. No further action could be taken against the aggressor.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:44:40 AM
The argument of sequestration as regards to military spending was a fake one. The proposed "cuts" were merely cuts to the proposed increases in the budget. For example, if the military wanted an increased budget of $80 billion dollars in the next year, and the Congress only permitted an increase of $60 billion dollars, they would call that a "cut" in spending. In actuality, they are getting a massive increase in their budget, just not quite as massive as they would like.
Here is a link that gives a bit more detail on this:
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/12/10/military-budget-deal-skips-sequestration-erases-22-billion-in-cuts/
You should know about this government double-speak. Every normal person would regard a cut in spending as a reduction in total spending from the previous year. Yet the government calls a huge increase in spending a "cut" if it is not quite as massive an increase as they would have liked.
As far as "rules of engagement" you'll have to be more specific as you what you are referring to. If you mean rules which attempt to limit the number of war crimes we allow our soldiers to commit, how are such limitations problematic? Surely you don't support war crimes, torture, and the murder of civilians?
Your liberalism is showing.
Your presuming soldiers will commit war crimes before they do.
You were talking about cognitive dissonance earlier. Isn't a contradiction to presume soldiers will commit war crimes, yet a volunteer police force will be honest and just?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:34:44 AM
Furthermore, I fail to see how you cannot understand the link between military spending, war and the growth of government domestically. I've heard many of you describe yourselves as "Constitutional Conservatives". How can you reduce government to it's Constitutionally limited size and scope if you cannot fathom significant cuts to military spending?
Since George W. Bush declared a "war on terror", look at the growth of the Federal government. Under the pretext of protecting us from terrorism, we've witnessed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act and unprecedented domestic surveillance. Furthermore, we've seen the militarization of our local police, expanded SWAT raids of domestic homes, extra-judicial executions of American citizens and so many more direct assaults on our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.
The primary reason they were able to get away with this massive growth of government is that they convinced us that terrorism represents a grave existential threat to our very way of life and we need to sacrifice some of our liberties in order to maintain safety.
I have a couple of simple questions.
Do you describe yourself as a Constitutional Conservative?
If I'm interpreting this position correctly, it would mean that you think we need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government until it does only those functions expressly delegated in the Constitution. In other words, you believe in "original intent", rather than in the Progressive notion of a "living, breathing Constitution" that can be re-interpreted to permit any government action.
Is this a coherent articulation of your views generally?
Then why do you arbitrarily eschew the founders advice to avoid entangling alliances and avoid going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy"?
If you're claim is that the world is much more different than it was in the founders time which requires a vastly different foreign policy, isn't this exactly what the Progressives argue when they try to justify ignoring other parts of the Constitution?
Progressives who argue for gun control say that the founders could not have envisioned the type of "assault" weapons we currently have, so we need to disregard the Second Amendment. How can you oppose this position coherently if you argue the same thing regarding foreign policy?
Furthermore, it has long been a stated tactic of Big Government Conservatives to distract the conservative base with a purported foreign enemy so they don't focus on cutting government at home, but instead expanding government abroad in the name of safety and security. William F. Buckley made this very argument during the Cold War. He criticized the Old Right for their "isolationism" and their opposition to FDR's New Deal and instead argued that they should put aside their calls for repeal of big government to focus on an arms buildup to defeat the Soviet menace.
You cannot simultaneously believe in small government AND believe in the sort of military spending, world empire and interventionist foreign policy that you seem to support.
These are mutually exclusive positions that cannot coexist.
I'm fascinated by this apparent cognitive dissonance. I'd like to have an honest discussion with ya'll about this.
jrodefeld
Cover one or two subjects per post. More people will not take the time and read long posts, or answer long posts.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:34:44 AM
If you're claim is that the world is much more different than it was in the founders time which requires a vastly different foreign policy, isn't this exactly what the Progressives argue when they try to justify ignoring other parts of the Constitution?
Progressives who argue for gun control say that the founders could not have envisioned the type of "assault" weapons we currently have, so we need to disregard the Second Amendment. How can you oppose this position coherently if you argue the same thing regarding foreign policy?
I'm fascinated by this apparent cognitive dissonance. I'd like to have an honest discussion with ya'll about this.
The founders haad an answer to the world is a much different place issue---it's called amending the Consitution.
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 09:58:36 AM
Your liberalism is showing.
Your presuming soldiers will commit war crimes before they do.
You were talking about cognitive dissonance earlier. Isn't a contradiction to presume soldiers will commit war crimes, yet a volunteer police force will be honest and just?
I'm not presuming anything. I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you said: "Rules of engagement: which ties our military's hands".
From my brief searching, the only Rules of Engagement reform proposals I've found simply attempted to prevent our soldiers from committing war crimes. And you seem to be objecting to such reforms.
But let's get one thing clear up front. The entire invasion of Iraq was a war crime. Iraq did not threaten the security of the United States, so our invasion of that country was an act of aggression.
Even many veterans were appalled at what US soldiers were permitted or even encouraged to do during that war.
http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=12536
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june08-witnesses_05-21/
If you actually elaborated on what you meant by your statement, I could respond in a clearer way.
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 09:45:43 AM
I have a friend who was a ranger. He tells the story of a guy who used to go out of his house every day and spray the passing convoy with bullets, then he'd drop his weapon, making him unarmed. No further action could be taken against the aggressor.
There are two things I'd say about this. First, why are our soldiers occupying his country? Is there a legitimate reason for us to be doing so? If China was occupying the United States against our wishes, and some of us fought back, you'd be defending us and not China.
Second, if a person fires a gun at another person with the intent to kill, then drops his weapon, any law enforcement officer or soldier has the right to take that person into custody or shoot back. Libertarian proportionality theory says that retaliatory force can be used up to an included the initial aggressive act. If someone takes the life of another, their just punishment can be anything up to death. It is up to the victim or their family to be more lenient if they are so inclined.
But this is missing the larger point. If our military is immorally occupying a foreign land, and some of them fight back against the aggressor, then we are in the wrong. Period.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 10:19:40 AM
I'm not presuming anything. I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you said: "Rules of engagement: which ties our military's hands".
Post #100
Quote
From my brief searching, the only Rules of Engagement reform proposals I've found simply attempted to prevent our soldiers from committing war crimes. And you seem to be objecting to such reforms.
But let's get one thing clear up front. The entire invasion of Iraq was a war crime. Iraq did not threaten the security of the United States, so our invasion of that country was an act of aggression.
Even many veterans were appalled at what US soldiers were permitted or even encouraged to do during that war.
http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=12536
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june08-witnesses_05-21/
Here's something to consider: the only reason an anti-war movement exists is because there's someone else risking his life, someone protecting their freedom to protest against the very people that are protecting their rights.
Will war ever cease? Doubt it. For war to cease we'll need to stop having things to protect.
Quote
If you actually elaborated on what you meant by your statement, I could respond in a clearer way.
Check post #100
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 10:17:00 AM
The founders haad an answer to the world is a much different place issue---it's called amending the Consitution.
You're right. But have we amended the Constitution to allow the actions we've taken in the "war on terror"? Of course not. The Constitution demands a declaration of war by the Congress, yet we invaded Iraq without one.
The actions our government has taken domestically have blatantly and flagrantly disregarded the Bill of Rights.
Do you support formal amendments to the Constitution which permit the actions taken by our government over the last fifteen years or so regarding National Defense? Which actions do you approve of and which do you disapprove?
The final thing I'll say is that there is a difference between what a document says our government should be allowed to do, and what is moral and just. This is just one reason I am not a Constitutionalist. I am an anarchist because I see written Constitutions as providing legal justification for governments to subjugate their subjects and being completely ineffectual in restraining their growth.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 10:27:09 AM
There are two things I'd say about this. First, why are our soldiers occupying his country? Is there a legitimate reason for us to be doing so? If China was occupying the United States against our wishes, and some of us fought back, you'd be defending us and not China.
Occupying? I think it had something to do with Osama Bin Laden running to the country for sanctuary. There was no occupying, only going after someone who committed an atrocity on the US.
Quote
Second, if a person fires a gun at another person with the intent to kill, then drops his weapon, any law enforcement officer or soldier has the right to take that person into custody or shoot back. Libertarian proportionality theory says that retaliatory force can be used up to an included the initial aggressive act. If someone takes the life of another, their just punishment can be anything up to death. It is up to the victim or their family to be more lenient if they are so inclined.
Not according to my friend. Once the aggressor dropped his weapon, there was nothing they could do.
Quote
But this is missing the larger point. If our military is immorally occupying a foreign land, and some of them fight back against the aggressor, then we are in the wrong. Period.
And what of the person that immorally killed 3000 Americans who went to work in the morning and expected to spend the eveving with their families?
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 10:31:03 AM
Post #100
Here's something to consider: the only reason an anti-war movement exists is because there's someone else risking his life, someone protecting their freedom to protest against the very people that are protecting their rights.
Will war ever cease? Doubt it. For war to cease we'll need to stop having things to protect.
Check post #100
Modern US soldiers are NOT protecting my life. They are making me less safe by stirring up hatred and resentment against the United States. I am not going to excuse the atrocities committed by US soldiers or kowtow to the US military machine as so many Americans foolishly do.
For our liberties to be protected, we do need a military or defense capabilities to some degree. But the necessary existence of the institution is a separate matter from the sorts of actions US military personnel are participating in. We don't need to conflate the two.
I don't defend US soldiers when they overthrown and occupy a foreign nation that did not threaten us. I don't defend US soldiers when they operate drones that kill civilians in foreign lands. I don't defend US soldiers when they participate in acts of aggression against others. I don't defend US soldiers when they enforce crippling economic sanctions against foreign lands that have no capacity to seriously threaten us.
Nearly all of the actions of the US military in 2016 are things that I strongly object to.
Ending all war is not possible, but it is a direction moral people should be pushing humanity towards. It may not be possible to end all war on the planet, but individual countries can and have avoided participating in
aggressive war and foreign occupation.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 10:36:05 AM
You're right. But have we amended the Constitution to allow the actions we've taken in the "war on terror"? Of course not. The Constitution demands a declaration of war by the Congress, yet we invaded Iraq without one.
I notice you'll harp on Iraq. What about Libya? Or is that different because a liberal (HRC and Obama) caused that abortion?
Quote
The final thing I'll say is that there is a difference between what a document says our government should be allowed to do, and what is moral and just. This is just one reason I am not a Constitutionalist. I am an anarchist because I see written Constitutions as providing legal justification for governments to subjugate their subjects and being completely ineffectual in restraining their growth.
A government such as a republic has to be a government ran by principled men, anything less and you encounter the problems your complaining about.
I find that ironic because that's what anarchy is: no principles. And tell me, as far as governments subjugating subjects and growing unchecked, what pray tell do you think will happen under anarchy
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 10:36:57 AM
Occupying? I think it had something to do with Osama Bin Laden running to the country for sanctuary. There was no occupying, only going after someone who committed an atrocity on the US.
Not according to my friend. Once the aggressor dropped his weapon, there was nothing they could do.
And what of the person that immorally killed 3000 Americans who went to work in the morning and expected to spend the eveving with their families?
Going after Osama bin Laden does not require occupying a foreign nation. All it required was a pinpoint accuracy strike, good and diligent foreign intelligence, diplomacy and a small, elite force to capture or kill him. After we got our man, we should have immediately vacated the region.
In fact, I would have supported Ron Paul's suggestion that we use the Letters of Marque and Reprisal to apprehend or kill bin Laden. For non-State actors, the military is a blunt instrument when we needed a precision instrument.
Surely you don't think that invading and occupying Iraq or invading and occupying Afghanistan for fifteen years was required to get bin Laden, do you? Everyone knew that bin Laden escaped from Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and escaped into Pakistan. What were our troops doing occupying Afghanistan if we knew that bin Laden wasn't there anymore?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 09:04:53 AM
Out of curiosity, can you explain how Obama "hurt" the military? I hear this all the time from the Right. Our military has been "gutted", we need to "rebuild" our military, etc.
The truth of the matter is that military spending has continued to grow every year of Obama's presidency.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. By the way, I'm "still here" because I like to see what different ideological groups tend to think about a variety of subjects. Maybe you'll learn a little bit about libertarian thought and I'll learn something about conservatism.
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2016/03/25/americas-military-is-in-much-worse-shape-than-youd-think/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2021USb_30t
http://observer.com/2015/01/reckless-cuts-to-us-military-spending-leaving-america-vulnerable/
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476048024/fact-check-has-president-obama-depleted-the-military
Well, your evidence is above, a quick search will fill up pages. I am curious , for someone who likes to see evidence you sure don't supply any, telling us what books you read to get your viewpoints is not evidence. But, I have learned enough about liberalism, excuse me, libertarian to know there is nothing there.
Quote from: quiller on September 22, 2016, 07:52:54 AM
That's more or less why I left it to hardier souls like you to dissect his spiel.
Now that you've chewed him like a dog's hard-biscuit, can I now hear your second for the motion from the floor, by old sup there?
Been in the pasture all day shedding and watching the cow pies fly when the shredder hit them. So after a good hot day of watching the bull shit fly I guess his is not too different, too bad only the other bs can be used as compost. I will say where I do not think he brings anything to the table, I have learned from the other posters who have responded and am thankful this forum has the quality of members that is does. And for that I am thankful to you and all of yall who run this forum. But back to the question, I have to second Sup, this forum is too good to have those who bring nothing but b.s
How can anyone support a candidate that has said,"Gary Johnson: I Agree With 73% of What Bernie Sanders Says" (http://freebeacon.com/politics/johnson-agree-73-percent-sanders/)?
Bernie is an avowed communist and Johnson supports what he says? Unless you are a loopy communist, you cannot support Johnson.
As for libertarians; I cannot even consider a party that supports open borders.
Go peddle your nonsense on a forum that might agree with your crap. The people on this forum are not buying your con. :cursing:
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 22, 2016, 10:50:46 AM
I notice you'll harp on Iraq. What about Libya? Or is that different because a liberal (HRC and Obama) caused that abortion?
A government such as a republic has to be a government ran by principled men, anything less and you encounter the problems your complaining about.
I find that ironic because that's what anarchy is: no principles. And tell me, as far as governments subjugating subjects and growing unchecked, what pray tell do you think will happen under anarchy
The overthrow of Gaddafi and invasion of Libya was a complete disaster. That decision alone should disqualify Hillary from consideration as our next president. I'm not playing favorites and I don't trust either of the two major parties more than the other. I'm against military intervention against foreign nations no matter who supports them.
I don't know if you supported the War in Iraq. Did you?
The humorous thing is that some conservatives heavily criticize Hillary for the disaster in Libya (as they rightly should) while still defending the invasion of Iraq. They don't seem to see how similar both of these invasions were. Primarily because of her military hawkishness, Hillary may be even more dangerous than Trump and that is saying a lot.
Anarchy is not no principles. In fact, it is the result of the principle of non-aggression taken to it's logical conclusion. If the State was immediately abolished tomorrow, one would just grow in it's place. For us to either shrink government to that of a limited Republic or eliminate the State altogether, we need to get a sufficient number of people to understand the harm that governments do. If enough people start to see the State as being illegitimate, then a Stateless society becomes possible.
If the Civil Rights Act were to be repealed tomorrow, do you think that we'd start to see many business owners put up "whites only" signs? I don't think so. The reason that Jim Crow-era segregation is not coming back has less to do with the State enforcing integration at the point of a gun, it has more to do with the fact that America is a far less racist place than it once was. Decent people reject bigotry. It is the changing of hearts and minds that allows social reforms to be sustainable.
Similarly, if enough people reject politics and see the State as inherently destructive, then a Stateless order is possible. I'd argue that anarchy is actually more sustainable than a limited government is. If people accept the premise of the State, then it is hardly a leap for them to slowly begin to accept a growth of the government until the result is essentially unlimited centralization of power with no practical limits.
On the other hand, if people reject the State at a very principled level, then a free society can be maintained because we would never permit the establishment of a State that then had the ability to slowly grow and take over more of social life.
Quote from: s3779m on September 22, 2016, 04:27:02 PM
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2016/03/25/americas-military-is-in-much-worse-shape-than-youd-think/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2021USb_30t
http://observer.com/2015/01/reckless-cuts-to-us-military-spending-leaving-america-vulnerable/
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476048024/fact-check-has-president-obama-depleted-the-military
Well, your evidence is above, a quick search will fill up pages. I am curious , for someone who likes to see evidence you sure don't supply any, telling us what books you read to get your viewpoints is not evidence. But, I have learned enough about liberalism, excuse me, libertarian to know there is nothing there.
I'll concede one thing. My saying that "military spending has increased every year" under Obama was incorrect. I was hasty in trying to dispel the myth that our military was "gutted" and needs to be rebuilt, which is still very much a lie.
The relative reductions in military spending that occurred in the several years after 2010 were primarily the result of us withdrawing troops from Iraq and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. These wars were never really ended since we maintain a military presence there. However, it is logical that there will be a reduction in overall spending due to this fact alone.
I'll cite Wikipedia on this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Here is the annual military spending over the Obama years:
2009: 698 Billion
2010: 721 Billion
2011: 717 Billion
2012: 681 Billion
2013: 610 Billion
2014: 614 Billion
2015: 637 Billion
Okay, I was not technically correct to claim that spending went up every year. But the notion that the military was "gutted" and now we might not be able to win a war is complete bullshit.
I'm not defending Obama one bit. I think he should have cut military spending FAR more than he did. And over the last three years the budget has been increasing again.
In November of 2007 the number of US troops in Iraq peaked at
170,000. Are you trying to claim that ending a war with that sort of commitment of ground troops is not going to result in a smaller military budget for a few years? Obama has continued to intervene into the middle east, but has refrained from committing ground troops into the region in the numbers that George W. Bush did. He has relied on Drone strikes and advanced technology more than his predecessor.
So Obama entered office with a military budget of 698 Billion dollars a year and will leave office with a budget of 637 Billion dollars a year. The country that has the second-highest annual military budget is China and we are STILL spending
seven times as much per year as they are.
This is not enough for you?
We don't know yet how much the total military spending for 2016 will be, but there is a good chance Obama will leave office with a military budget very close to the same as the one he had when he came into office. Factoring in inflation it will still be less in real numbers but we also aren't fighting the Iraq War anymore.
The hyperbole on the Right about this issue is beyond the pale. "Only" spending 7 times what China spends on military leaves us "vulnerable" and "weak". Preposterous.
Quote from: tac on September 22, 2016, 04:56:33 PM
How can anyone support a candidate that has said,"Gary Johnson: I Agree With 73% of What Bernie Sanders Says" (http://freebeacon.com/politics/johnson-agree-73-percent-sanders/)?
Bernie is an avowed communist and Johnson supports what he says? Unless you are a loopy communist, you cannot support Johnson.
As for libertarians; I cannot even consider a party that supports open borders.
Go peddle your nonsense on a forum that might agree with your crap. The people on this forum are not buying your con. :cursing:
I'm not supporting Gary Johnson and most libertarians aren't either. And being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to support the Libertarian Party. Not all libertarians are for open-borders.
Frankly, if you believe the things you claim to believe, you'd be much better off among libertarians who are actually serious about reducing the size and scope of government than you are participating in the Republican Party. Surely Donald Trump is farther away from Constitutional Conservatism than any libertarian is.
What fun would it be to post in a forum where everyone agrees with me?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 05:54:51 PM
I'll concede one thing. My saying that "military spending has increased every year" under Obama was incorrect. I was hasty in trying to dispel the myth that our military was "gutted" and needs to be rebuilt, which is still very much a lie.
The relative reductions in military spending that occurred in the several years after 2010 were primarily the result of us withdrawing troops from Iraq and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. These wars were never really ended since we maintain a military presence there. However, it is logical that there will be a reduction in overall spending due to this fact alone.
I'll cite Wikipedia on this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Here is the annual military spending over the Obama years:
2009: 698 Billion
2010: 721 Billion
2011: 717 Billion
2012: 681 Billion
2013: 610 Billion
2014: 614 Billion
2015: 637 Billion
Okay, I was not technically correct to claim that spending went up every year. But the notion that the military was "gutted" and now we might not be able to win a war is complete bullshit.
I'm not defending Obama one bit. I think he should have cut military spending FAR more than he did. And over the last three years the budget has been increasing again.
In November of 2007 the number of US troops in Iraq peaked at 170,000. Are you trying to claim that ending a war with that sort of commitment of ground troops is not going to result in a smaller military budget for a few years? Obama has continued to intervene into the middle east, but has refrained from committing ground troops into the region in the numbers that George W. Bush did. He has relied on Drone strikes and advanced technology more than his predecessor.
So Obama entered office with a military budget of 698 Billion dollars a year and will leave office with a budget of 637 Billion dollars a year. The country that has the second-highest annual military budget is China and we are STILL spending seven times as much per year as they are.
This is not enough for you?
We don't know yet how much the total military spending for 2016 will be, but there is a good chance Obama will leave office with a military budget very close to the same as the one he had when he came into office. Factoring in inflation it will still be less in real numbers but we also aren't fighting the Iraq War anymore.
The hyperbole on the Right about this issue is beyond the pale. "Only" spending 7 times what China spends on military leaves us "vulnerable" and "weak". Preposterous.
One habit that I have always found annoying is when others try to put words into your mouth, like this "This is not enough for you? " You have no idea how I feel about any damn thing. If you want to dispute anything, stick to the facts or evidence given. You keep saying the military should be cut, we get that, I do not agree and there is nothing you have posted that proves it will not harm the military, or would somehow make us safer, NOTHING!
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2016, 10:53:47 AM
Going after Osama bin Laden does not require occupying a foreign nation. All it required was a pinpoint accuracy strike, good and diligent foreign intelligence, diplomacy and a small, elite force to capture or kill him. After we got our man, we should have immediately vacated the region.
In fact, I would have supported Ron Paul's suggestion that we use the Letters of Marque and Reprisal to apprehend or kill bin Laden. For non-State actors, the military is a blunt instrument when we needed a precision instrument.
I agree with you on this point, with the caveat that it is often necessary to occupy a foreign territory in order to establish a base to work from, logistics demand it. Besides, OBL, (Who wasn't the only target, many Al Q'ieda hiearchy) moved around a lot. In fact he managed to escape to Pakistan.
In some of your posts you indicate you don;t condone drone strikes that can potentially harm civilians, yet you want an air strike drone strike in the case of OBL....in truth these people are clever enough to engage in, 'hugging' civilians and civilian facilities like schools and hospitals where they often store munitions, weapons and communication centers, knowing they are generally safe from an air/drone strike.
I absolutely agree that once OBL was killed the US should have declared victory and left Ghanny.
Letters of marque are just contracts, contracts handed out to civilians so that they are acting under color of law. I support this also
especially on our borders and coastal lands, they would be more effective in stopping illegals, contraband and drug smuggling if they were paid only by the assets they seize
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 23, 2016, 05:27:26 AM
Letters of marque are just contracts, contracts handed out to civilians so that they are acting under color of law. I support this also especially on our borders and coastal lands, they would be more effective in stopping illegals, contraband and drug smuggling if they were paid only by the assets they seize
Seized drugs and weapons would be too tempting. Privateers become pirates, permission or not.
Quote from: quiller on September 23, 2016, 06:19:00 AM
Seized drugs and weapons would be too tempting. Privateers become pirates, permission or not.
Cash, drugs and weapons are tempting to anyone, Federal Agent or not. There would have to be guidelines and federal supervision to keep such units "honest" Seized cash assets and conveyances like boats, vehicles and airplanes would bring in the money for privateers, drugs & other contraband would be seized by accompanying BP/customs agent liaison officers
working with each unit. Compliance with asset forfeiture laws, hearings etc would still be mandated and all such property would have to be awarded by the court so laws would be maintained much the same as they are now.
Quote from: s3779m on September 23, 2016, 03:29:22 AM
One habit that I have always found annoying is when others try to put words into your mouth, like this "This is not enough for you? " You have no idea how I feel about any damn thing. If you want to dispute anything, stick to the facts or evidence given. You keep saying the military should be cut, we get that, I do not agree and there is nothing you have posted that proves it will not harm the military, or would somehow make us safer, NOTHING!
I don't think I'm putting words into your mouth, actually. Conservatives who claim that Obama has gravely harmed the military and it now needs to be "rebuilt" are arguing so primarily because Obama hasn't expanded the military budget as much as they would have liked.
Look at the links you posted. They are all criticizing Obama for his supposed military budget cuts, which supposedly leave us "vulnerable". By implication, this means that the current US military budget is, like I said, "not enough for you".
We've maintained a residual force of less than 10,000 troops and a massive embassy in Iraq but at the peak of the war, we had 170,000 troops engaged in active, boots-on-the-ground combat in that country.
So Obama "ended" that war (more or less), the military budget went down slightly for two years after we ceased fighting a major war and has since been increasing again the last three years. How exactly could this be considered "reckless" cuts to the military budget?
Would we have expected Truman to maintain the same military budget in the late 1940s as FDR did at the height of World War 2?
Frankly, I don't even know what you mean by "harm the military". The military is a tool by which we provide for our national security. The only concern I have is whether we have the capacity to defend our nation against potential threat.
China spends the next most amount of money on their military after the United States. And the United States spends
seven times as much on our military as China does. Furthermore, China is a crucial trading partner and there is no likelihood of them posing a military threat to the United States in the future.
So what the hell do we have to spend all this money for?
Iran, which one of you cited as our biggest national security threat, spends 17 billion dollars per year on their military.
Even Russia, who we are being told to fear, spends only 65 Billion dollars per year on their military.
The United States spends
ten times what Russia spends on their military.
The only other country that spends more on their military than Russia, other than the United States and China, is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been an ally for decades. Saudi Arabia by the way is one of the most radical, fundamentalist and extreme Islamic nation in the world. It exports far more terrorism, including the 9/11 hijackers, than any of the other middle eastern nations.
Saudi Arabia spends 81 Billion dollars per year on their military.
Where are the threats to our national security that demand we spend nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars every year on our military?! I can't understand how you rationalize this in your mind.
I'm not going to presume anything about who you listen to or where you read your news, okay? However, I am well aware of the agenda behind a great deal of conservative media outlets. Many of them have conflicts of interest with defense contractors and war profiteers. Many have ties to the Israeli Lobby, or are financed by media tycoons with such ties. Sheldon Adelson is a very prominent mogul who is an Israeli-Firster and has been heavily financing the propaganda campaign against Iran.
The articles you cited and the "arguments" (if you can call them that) put forward by most mainstream conservatives regarding military spending have absolutely nothing to do with our actual security needs and everything to do with subsidizing Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing and other contractors. The Military Industrial Complex is not about rationally assessing our true security needs. It's about getting tax payer money to build weapons, then agitating for wars to use them in.
Rodentfeet wants us defenseless. Pass it on.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 24, 2016, 01:20:48 AM
I don't think I'm putting words into your mouth, actually. Conservatives who claim that Obama has gravely harmed the military and it now needs to be "rebuilt" are arguing so primarily because Obama hasn't expanded the military budget as much as they would have liked.
Look at the links you posted. They are all criticizing Obama for his supposed military budget cuts, which supposedly leave us "vulnerable". By implication, this means that the current US military budget is, like I said, "not enough for you".
We've maintained a residual force of less than 10,000 troops and a massive embassy in Iraq but at the peak of the war, we had 170,000 troops engaged in active, boots-on-the-ground combat in that country.
So Obama "ended" that war (more or less), the military budget went down slightly for two years after we ceased fighting a major war and has since been increasing again the last three years. How exactly could this be considered "reckless" cuts to the military budget?
Would we have expected Truman to maintain the same military budget in the late 1940s as FDR did at the height of World War 2?
Frankly, I don't even know what you mean by "harm the military". The military is a tool by which we provide for our national security. The only concern I have is whether we have the capacity to defend our nation against potential threat.
China spends the next most amount of money on their military after the United States. And the United States spends seven times as much on our military as China does. Furthermore, China is a crucial trading partner and there is no likelihood of them posing a military threat to the United States in the future.
So what the hell do we have to spend all this money for?
Iran, which one of you cited as our biggest national security threat, spends 17 billion dollars per year on their military.
Even Russia, who we are being told to fear, spends only 65 Billion dollars per year on their military.
The United States spends ten times what Russia spends on their military.
The only other country that spends more on their military than Russia, other than the United States and China, is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been an ally for decades. Saudi Arabia by the way is one of the most radical, fundamentalist and extreme Islamic nation in the world. It exports far more terrorism, including the 9/11 hijackers, than any of the other middle eastern nations.
Saudi Arabia spends 81 Billion dollars per year on their military.
Where are the threats to our national security that demand we spend nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars every year on our military?! I can't understand how you rationalize this in your mind.
I'm not going to presume anything about who you listen to or where you read your news, okay? However, I am well aware of the agenda behind a great deal of conservative media outlets. Many of them have conflicts of interest with defense contractors and war profiteers. Many have ties to the Israeli Lobby, or are financed by media tycoons with such ties. Sheldon Adelson is a very prominent mogul who is an Israeli-Firster and has been heavily financing the propaganda campaign against Iran.
The articles you cited and the "arguments" (if you can call them that) put forward by most mainstream conservatives regarding military spending have absolutely nothing to do with our actual security needs and everything to do with subsidizing Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing and other contractors. The Military Industrial Complex is not about rationally assessing our true security needs. It's about getting tax payer money to build weapons, then agitating for wars to use them in.
The articles posted show where and how the military has been harmed, a quick search can show more articles if you wish. You keep claiming we can cut 50% and stay safe, unfortunately the only way to prove that would be to do it and take the chance no one would take advantage. Kinda of like driving without a seatbelt.
Quote from: quiller on September 24, 2016, 03:43:31 AM
Rodentfeet wants us defenseless. Pass it on.
No, you've got it all wrong. I want us to be
defensive-minded and not
offensive-minded. Wouldn't you concede that the military spending necessary for maintaining bases in 170 countries, exporting arms to other countries, intervening into the internal affairs of other nations that haven't threatened us, and paying for the defense of others requires a great deal more money than simply being able to adequately defend the United States?
What on earth makes you think that spending anywhere near this amount of money on defense is necessary for our national defense?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 24, 2016, 07:00:59 PM
No, you've got it all wrong. I want us to be defensive-minded and not offensive-minded. Wouldn't you concede that the military spending necessary for maintaining bases in 170 countries, exporting arms to other countries, intervening into the internal affairs of other nations that haven't threatened us, and paying for the defense of others requires a great deal more money than simply being able to adequately defend the United States?
What on earth makes you think that spending anywhere near this amount of money on defense is necessary for our national defense?
Offhand I would say he has been in the services and you have not.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 24, 2016, 07:00:59 PM
No, you've got it all wrong. I want us to be defensive-minded and not offensive-minded. Wouldn't you concede that the military spending necessary for maintaining bases in 170 countries, exporting arms to other countries, intervening into the internal affairs of other nations that haven't threatened us, and paying for the defense of others requires a great deal more money than simply being able to adequately defend the United States?
What on earth makes you think that spending anywhere near this amount of money on defense is necessary for our national defense?
The money we WASTE on national defense includes every single one of the racist bisexual Obama's numerous social-readjustment programs pushing perversion on our military. (The present secretary of the army was specifically chosen because he's queer; Obama noted that early in the nomination process.)
The Navy will soon undergo mandatory training forcing acceptance of cross-dressing perverts and other sickos. Democrats continue their nauseating wish to do social experimentation on our military.
Skip that crap and buy another two or three war planes. Maybe a few nukes for Muslim holy sites. Multiply that one program by everything ELSE (p)Resident Hussein has inflicted. It will add up and not one extra penny was spent.
Quote from: quiller on September 25, 2016, 02:53:31 AM
The money we WASTE on national defense includes every single one of the racist bisexual Obama's numerous social-readjustment programs pushing perversion on our military. (The present secretary of the army was specifically chosen because he's queer; Obama noted that early in the nomination process.)
The Navy will soon undergo mandatory training forcing acceptance of cross-dressing perverts and other sickos. Democrats continue their nauseating wish to do social experimentation on our military.
Skip that crap and buy another two or three war planes. Maybe a few nukes for Muslim holy sites. Multiply that one program by everything ELSE (p)Resident Hussein has inflicted. It will add up and not one extra penny was spent.
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?
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 26, 2016, 06:10:07 AM$350 toilet seats the pentagon was paying for?
Actually, we paid $10 for the toilet seat; we paid $340 for the hole.
Quote from: quiller on September 25, 2016, 02:53:31 AM
The money we WASTE on national defense includes every single one of the racist bisexual Obama's numerous social-readjustment programs pushing perversion on our military. (The present secretary of the army was specifically chosen because he's queer; Obama noted that early in the nomination process.)
The Navy will soon undergo mandatory training forcing acceptance of cross-dressing perverts and other sickos. Democrats continue their nauseating wish to do social experimentation on our military.
Skip that crap and buy another two or three war planes. Maybe a few nukes for Muslim holy sites. Multiply that one program by everything ELSE (p)Resident Hussein has inflicted. It will add up and not one extra penny was spent.
Oh, come on. You really think that the wasted money is being spent on "trans-gender sensitivity training" and things like that? I agree that these programs are stupid, but that is not where the money is being spent. At least "sensitivity training" doesn't actually kill anyone.
I sure hope you were being facetious when you said "a few nukes for Muslim holy sites". If your actual opinion is that a nuclear first strike specifically targeted to inflame religious tensions is permissible, then you are explicitly endorsing evil and pose a great danger to humanity. In fact, ANY nuclear first-strike for whatever reason should be considered absolutely immoral.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 26, 2016, 06:10:07 AM
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?
The trouble with this is that "insiders" are likely to be a part of the military industrial complex and will be agitating for ever higher budgets and jobs programs building new weapons systems that are not truly necessary for our national defense. This is how government departments tend to operate. Spokesmen for special interests will never advocate that their budgets be reduced. They'll use fear-mongering to scare people into increasing their funding.
It's important to remember that a lot of these military industrial complex programs are simply make-work government jobs programs. People usually don't even argue that the weapons systems being built are necessary for our national defense. They argue that these programs are good because they employ people and stimulate the economy.
I understand that some military spending is more valuable than others and when you slash spending, you will want to have an accounting of what the money is being spent on and eliminate the completely worthless stuff before you touch the more fundamental and important stuff.
But all this money is being spent in support of a particular type of foreign policy. How many missiles, planes and drones were built simply because we were fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq? If we didn't invade and occupy Iraq for a decade, we obviously wouldn't need to have some many weapons systems built.
The money we spend constructing and maintaining foreign military bases could be slashed entirely if we decided to close them down and bring all the troops home.
If we can accept the principle of a non-interventionist foreign policy, then we can decide how much money is actually required for our national defense. The most accurate assessments indicate we could be cutting more than 50% of our military budget if our foreign policy objectives were targeted at defense rather than nation-building and empire.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2016, 01:23:59 PM
The trouble with this is that "insiders" are likely to be a part of the military industrial complex and will be agitating for ever higher budgets and jobs programs building new weapons systems that are not truly necessary for our national defense. This is how government departments tend to operate. Spokesmen for special interests will never advocate that their budgets be reduced. They'll use fear-mongering to scare people into increasing their funding.
It's important to remember that a lot of these military industrial complex programs are simply make-work government jobs programs. People usually don't even argue that the weapons systems being built are necessary for our national defense. They argue that these programs are good because they employ people and stimulate the economy.
I understand that some military spending is more valuable than others and when you slash spending, you will want to have an accounting of what the money is being spent on and eliminate the completely worthless stuff before you touch the more fundamental and important stuff.
But all this money is being spent in support of a particular type of foreign policy. How many missiles, planes and drones were built simply because we were fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq? If we didn't invade and occupy Iraq for a decade, we obviously wouldn't need to have some many weapons systems built.
The money we spend constructing and maintaining foreign military bases could be slashed entirely if we decided to close them down and bring all the troops home.
If we can accept the principle of a non-interventionist foreign policy, then we can decide how much money is actually required for our national defense. The most accurate assessments indicate we could be cutting more than 50% of our military budget if our foreign policy objectives were targeted at defense rather than nation-building and empire.
Sounds like a whole lot of opinions without anything to back it up. You want to cut military spending. We get that. Do you have anything else to bring?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2016, 01:23:59 PM
But all this money is being spent in support of a particular type of foreign policy.
The money we spend constructing and maintaining foreign military bases could be slashed entirely if we decided to close them down and bring all the troops home.
Okay Last post on this thread then I'm gonna let it die. I'll slash the shit out of foreign aide spending and the MILITARY budget to Pakistan, Turkey and a whole hell of a lot of other countries that are supposed to be our allies before I sacrifice one dime that is supposed to go to the US Military I don't care if we spend fifty times more than Russia, Lichtenstein or
Independant Samoa.
WE NEED TO STOP SENDING MONEY TO MUSLIM COUNTRIES TO PROP UP THEIR MILITARIES FIRST.
Then we need to stop ALL aide to certain countries, especially those in Africa and then those Damn Palestinians.
While we're at it we need to slash or eliminate our budget to the U.N.....all they do is take fact finding junkets and issue strong protests.
I can agree to withdrawals from Afghanistan, stop meddling in Syria and get the hell out of Libya, all are losing propositions.
We still need to support Israel.
I'm done
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2016, 01:05:48 PM
Oh, come on. You really think that the wasted money is being spent on "trans-gender sensitivity training" and things like that? I agree that these programs are stupid, but that is not where the money is being spent. At least "sensitivity training" doesn't actually kill anyone.
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.
QuoteI sure hope you were being facetious when you said "a few nukes for Muslim holy sites". If your actual opinion is that a nuclear first strike specifically targeted to inflame religious tensions is permissible, then you are explicitly endorsing evil and pose a great danger to humanity. In fact, ANY nuclear first-strike for whatever reason should be considered absolutely immoral.
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.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 26, 2016, 06:10:07 AM
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.
Quote from: quiller on September 26, 2016, 07:00:44 PM
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.
Quote from: quiller on September 26, 2016, 06:51:54 PM
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.
He might be a bit insane.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2016, 10:45:45 PM
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteThis 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.
Dictionary description for "Insane": Very foolish, bonkers, batty, certifiable, demented, harebrained, and the list continues alphabetically.
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2016, 12:35:59 PM
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"? :lol:
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 27, 2016, 12:49:02 PM
Does the dictionary have the same description for "liberal"? :lol:
It's the same.
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 27, 2016, 12:49:02 PM
Does the dictionary have the same description for "liberal"? :lol:
It does say "loose", so whether it's referring to sexual activity or their screws, it does appear spot on. :biggrin:
Quote from: quiller on September 27, 2016, 02:37:53 AM
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 Policyhttps://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.
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?
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2016, 12:35:59 PM
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?
Quote from: quiller on September 27, 2016, 06:33:27 PM
Eight years under either one of these losers, won't all of us fit that description?
I'm already there. :lol:
Quote from: quiller on September 27, 2016, 04:47:45 PM
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?
Your position is that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, because we are a Christian nation and because the Quran instructs them to kill the infidels and establish a worldwide caliphate. This is not why they attack us. This is not why people become radicalized and join ISIS.
History did not start on 9/11. The attacked followed more than a decade of US bombings, sanctions, and various levels of interference into the middle east. Osama bin Laden very explicitly said that he planned and carried out the attacks as revenge for the deaths of Arabs at the hands of US foreign policy.
These intermittent terrorist attacks committed against the United States occur within a larger context that you are willfully choosing to ignore.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 27, 2016, 07:25:28 PM
Your position is that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, because we are a Christian nation and because the Quran instructs them to kill the infidels and establish a worldwide caliphate. This is not why they attack us. This is not why people become radicalized and join ISIS.
History did not start on 9/11. The attacked followed more than a decade of US bombings, sanctions, and various levels of interference into the middle east. Osama bin Laden very explicitly said that he planned and carried out the attacks as revenge for the deaths of Arabs at the hands of US foreign policy.
These intermittent terrorist attacks committed against the United States occur within a larger context that you are willfully choosing to ignore.
Quote
History did not start on 9/11.
:lol:
No it did not. They have been killing each other for over 3.000 years. Long before there was a U.S. or a bomb. It's there way of life.
Quote from: walkstall on September 27, 2016, 07:46:07 PM
:lol:
No it did not. They have been killing each other for over 3.000 years. Long before there was a U.S. or a bomb. It's there way of life.
It's convenient for the hate America crowd to forget that part. :rolleyes:
Quote from: tac on September 27, 2016, 07:51:00 PM
It's convenient for the hate America crowd to forget that part. :rolleyes:
Well some of us have been around longer then they have been flinging poo in hopes it will stick. :lol:
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 27, 2016, 07:25:28 PM
Your position is that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, because we are a Christian nation and because the Quran instructs them to kill the infidels and establish a worldwide caliphate. This is not why they attack us. This is not why people become radicalized and join ISIS.
History did not start on 9/11. The attacked followed more than a decade of US bombings, sanctions, and various levels of interference into the middle east. Osama bin Laden very explicitly said that he planned and carried out the attacks as revenge for the deaths of Arabs at the hands of US foreign policy.
These intermittent terrorist attacks committed against the United States occur within a larger context that you are willfully choosing to ignore.
OK. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to create your own facts.
I've been skimming this thread for awhile now and it's obvious you're completely oblivious and ignorant to history. I can appreciate the fact that you hate war, we all hate war, but war is merely a mirrored image and an amplification of human nature, sometimes it's failed politics, and sometimes it bruised egos, but in this case, it's a political system disguised as a religion, one of conquer and destruction.
Look up Barbary Pirates and why we have a Navy today. So cut the idiocy and learn something for a change!
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2016, 08:18:40 PM
OK. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to create your own facts.
I've been skimming this thread for awhile now and it's obvious you're completely oblivious and ignorant to history. I can appreciate the fact that you hate war, we all hate war, but war is merely a mirrored image and an amplification of human nature, sometimes it's failed politics, and sometimes it bruised egos, but in this case, it's a political system disguised as a religion, one of conquer and destruction.
Look up Barbary Pirates and why we have a Navy today. So cut the idiocy and learn something for a change!
There will be internal problems and violence in the middle east for the foreseeable future. However, they would not be planning, plotting and executing terrorist attacks against the United States were it not for our foreign interventions into their countries. I'm not "creating my own facts". I'm relying on the scholarly work of experts who have studied this, primarily Scheuer, Pape and Johnson who I cited earlier.
If you hate war as much as I do, are you willing to support pulling all of our troops out of the middle east, ending the use of drones to bomb people in foreign countries, closing Guantanamo prison, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy?
I don't know what the Barbary Pirates have to do with anything. Interestingly, our early presidents used Letters of Marque and Reprisal to go after the Barbary Pirates, since they were non-State actors.
Ron Paul supported the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to capture or kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 and I think this would have been the best solution. The Letters could be employed if and when a non-State group of people launch an attack against Americans. This would be far more effective than employing our military, invading foreign lands and nation-building.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 27, 2016, 08:53:33 PM
There will be internal problems and violence in the middle east for the foreseeable future. However, they would not be planning, plotting and executing terrorist attacks against the United States were it not for our foreign interventions into their countries. I'm not "creating my own facts". I'm relying on the scholarly work of experts who have studied this, primarily Scheuer, Pape and Johnson who I cited earlier.
If you hate war as much as I do, are you willing to support pulling all of our troops out of the middle east, ending the use of drones to bomb people in foreign countries, closing Guantanamo prison, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy?
I don't know what the Barbary Pirates have to do with anything. Interestingly, our early presidents used Letters of Marque and Reprisal to go after the Barbary Pirates, since they were non-State actors.
Ron Paul supported the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to capture or kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 and I think this would have been the best solution. The Letters could be employed if and when a non-State group of people launch an attack against Americans. This would be far more effective than employing our military, invading foreign lands and nation-building.
The scream right before the killings start is "Allahu akbar" or God is greater. It has nothing to do with their country or any occupation and everything to do with their religion. If you take a look you will notice different tribes of muslims have been killing each other since written history began and long before countries existed. Christians who live in their country with them are killed for being Christians not for occupation. Jews are hated and killed for their beliefs and that led to war and occupation not the other way. Can you cite one act of terrorism where the terrorist claimed his murdering innocents was due to our military? I can name several where the terrorist claimed he was killing in the name of Allahu akbar because he was instructed to.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 27, 2016, 08:53:33 PM
There will be internal problems and violence in the middle east for the foreseeable future. However, they would not be planning, plotting and executing terrorist attacks against the United States were it not for our foreign interventions into their countries. I'm not "creating my own facts". I'm relying on the scholarly work of experts who have studied this, primarily Scheuer, Pape and Johnson who I cited earlier.
If you hate war as much as I do, are you willing to support pulling all of our troops out of the middle east, ending the use of drones to bomb people in foreign countries, closing Guantanamo prison, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy?
I don't know what the Barbary Pirates have to do with anything. Interestingly, our early presidents used Letters of Marque and Reprisal to go after the Barbary Pirates, since they were non-State actors.
Ron Paul supported the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to capture or kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 and I think this would have been the best solution. The Letters could be employed if and when a non-State group of people launch an attack against Americans. This would be far more effective than employing our military, invading foreign lands and nation-building.
I am constantly amazed how many leftists think if we do not go THERE to fight that they will not come HERE instead. Talk about magical thinking from halfwits! Those who want islamic treasonists in our White House, please vote Democrat!
I do support pulling our troops out. I would not want them harmed when Mecca and Medina go up in a mushroom cloud, taking everything in between with it.
Good Mussie.
Glowing Mussie.....and thanks for 9/11.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 27, 2016, 03:39:43 PM
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.
Do you have any specifics on these non-terrorist folks being behind attacks on America and Americans? It seems you fail to acknowledge the heathens we are targeting purposely mingle among innocents so collateral damage is inevitable. It is part of war.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 27, 2016, 08:53:33 PM
There will be internal problems and violence in the middle east for the foreseeable future. However, they would not be planning, plotting and executing terrorist attacks against the United States were it not for our foreign interventions into their countries. I'm not "creating my own facts". I'm relying on the scholarly work of experts who have studied this, primarily Scheuer, Pape and Johnson who I cited earlier.
If you hate war as much as I do, are you willing to support pulling all of our troops out of the middle east, ending the use of drones to bomb people in foreign countries, closing Guantanamo prison, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy?
I don't know what the Barbary Pirates have to do with anything. Interestingly, our early presidents used Letters of Marque and Reprisal to go after the Barbary Pirates, since they were non-State actors.
Ron Paul supported the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to capture or kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 and I think this would have been the best solution. The Letters could be employed if and when a non-State group of people launch an attack against Americans. This would be far more effective than employing our military, invading foreign lands and nation-building.
And that answer proves just what I was saying, that you're an ignorant idealistic kid with absolutely no concept of history or it's connection to the real world.
You've lived such a protected life here in the US, you apply American values to the rest of the world, you think everyone wants to live in peace, well they don't you moron!
These barbarians want what you have, and if they don't slit your throat, they'll make you a slave, a commodity to bought and sold on the open mkt.
To understand your own world, you need to know the world of the enemy, understand it's timeline in relation to war and peace, and what you'll find is it's only at peace because it's enemy is stronger, and yes, the US as a Christian nation is it's sworn enemy and according to it's so called religion deserves to be conquered.
Here is an excerpt from what kids are taught in S/A.
QuoteThe Saudis, the Custodians of Islam, also preach tolerance. Here is the proof.
I went through school textbooks taught in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Here is an English translation of some passages from these books.
A fourth grade textbook on Monotheism and Religion instructs students:
"Any other religion other than Islam is invalid (false)." (P. 29 )
"Hate (yakrah) the polytheists and the infidels" as a requirement of "true faith." (P. 86)
5th Grade. Book: Monotheism and Religion:
*"Every religion other than Islam is invalid." (P. 33)
More~~~
http://www.islam-watch.org/Sami/Islam-Tolerant-Religion-Kill-the-Infidels.htm
I could go on for days with proof that this is the norm in Ismum, but instead of trying to unbrainwash you, I challenge you to find anything similar in our schools.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 27, 2016, 08:53:33 PM
If you hate war as much as I do, are you willing to support pulling all of our troops out of the middle east, ending the use of drones to bomb people in foreign countries, closing Guantanamo prison, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy?
If you all hate war? Do you know anybody who wants war? Do you think people actually get up in the morning and say, "You know what we need, a good war."?
We all hate war. Nobody wants war. But, the truth of the matter is human history is NOT the history of making friends. The only way true way to end war is to NOT have something worth defending. Which, of course, brings into question are liberty and capitalism worth defending?
I would say so. Both have allowed millions to reach their true potential and created a culture that during the 50s and 60s the world emulated. It also created an economy where millions haad a standard of living never before seen in the world.
Has the US made mistakes? Of course, but no more than any other country. Remember, the Soviet Union was fighting Bin Laden before we were. The French were in Viet Nam before we were. So why is it we never hear about the sins of other countries and only have libs running down ours?
Quote from: s3779m on September 28, 2016, 12:13:00 AM
The scream right before the killings start is "Allahu akbar" or God is greater. It has nothing to do with their country or any occupation and everything to do with their religion. If you take a look you will notice different tribes of muslims have been killing each other since written history began and long before countries existed. Christians who live in their country with them are killed for being Christians not for occupation. Jews are hated and killed for their beliefs and that led to war and occupation not the other way. Can you cite one act of terrorism where the terrorist claimed his murdering innocents was due to our military? I can name several where the terrorist claimed he was killing in the name of Allahu akbar because he was instructed to.
Could you even bother to watch at least some of the videos I've posted on this topic? Nearly every major Islamic terrorist attack against the United States over the past twenty years has been motivated entirely or in large part due to resentment over US military intervention into the middle east. And the terrorists who plotted and committed these actions have not been shy about tell us explicitly WHY they were attacking us.
If you can stand it, you can hear this from Osama bin Laden's own mouth in a video he made following the attack of 9/11:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOif-wZJgZo
Notice how many times he references US military strikes against Muslims. Notice how he refers to the US as a "Crusader nation" that has been waging an unprovoked war against the Muslim world. Whether you agree or not, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda believed that they were responding to war crimes committed by the United States against their countries.
Or consider the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, the American citizen who Obama killed by a drone strike. Obama also killed his 16 year old son.
Al-Awlaki was a very moderate American Muslim who preached against violence and espoused tolerance. Over the course of years he became more and more disgusted with the United States attacks and war crimes committed against the Muslim world. He became more and more radicalized.
It should be noted that Al-Awlaki never committed any violent terrorist acts, nor was he proved to have conspired to commit such acts. He was killed essentially for his speech. Free speech, of course, is a Constitution right enshrined in the first amendment.
This is what Al-Awlaki said after 9/11:
"Muslims still see bin Laden as a person with extremely radical ideas. But he has been able to take advantage of the sentiment that is out there regarding U.S. foreign policy. We're totally against what the terrorists had done. We want to bring those who had done this to justice. But we're also against the killing of civilians in Afghanistan."Another quote from Al-Awlaki:
"The ummah [global Muslim community] is watching while Iraq is being devoured. It's not going to stop there, because it's going to spill over into Syria and Allah knows where. In your own city, and in this country, many people have been arrested. You know if you talk about Guantánamo Bay and all this — there's a Guantánamo Bay in this country. It's an insult to Islam. Allah will revenge for himself, but the thing is, we cannot allow such things to happen and just watch."And this is one of the most relevant quotes I could find:
"I, for one, was born in the U.S. I lived in the U.S. for 21 years. America was my home. I was a preacher of Islam involved in nonviolent Islamic activism. However, with the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself, just as it is binding on every other able Muslim."It can't get any more crystal clear than this. US foreign policy and war crimes committed against the Muslim world generate such anger and resentment that otherwise moderate and peaceful Muslims become radicalized and want to fight back.
If you watch the videos of Robert Pape that I posted, he cites numerous quotes of Islamic terrorists who explain what their motivations are.
By the way, there were a large number of Christians who lived in the SECULAR state of Iraq before our invasion. They were not being killed by the Muslims who lived in that country. After our invasion, many of these Christians have been killed or displaced and now the radical Islamic State has taken over. There are a large number of Christians and Jews who live peacefully in Iran and they are not being killed en masse by their Islamic neighbors.
In fact, Christianity is growing in Iran faster than anywhere in the world:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/5/1362609/-Why-is-Christianity-Growing-So-Fast-in-Iran
Furthermore, Iran has the highest percentage of Jewish citizens in the middle east outside of Israel:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/irans-jewish-community-reflects-a-complicated-relationship-with-israel/2013/10/02/e531039e-2ac4-11e3-b141-298f46539716_story.html
I am not arguing that there aren't radical Muslims who do kill and have killed non-believers, stoned women and gays to death and committed all manner of barbaric acts. But these internal problems within some nations in the middle east would not be OUR problem. This is something for moderate Muslims in the region to work out for themselves.
It should be noted that ISIS is not a popular group in the middle east. They are barbarians who are hated by nearly everyone. Moderate nations in the region would be capable to taking them out if the United States simply got out of the region and ALLOWED them to deal with some of their own problems.
The rise and proliferation of ISIS is largely a result of the United States intervention into the middle east which destabilized the region, created a power vacuum in Iraq which allowed radicals to take advantage.
Quote from: quiller on September 28, 2016, 02:24:31 AM
I am constantly amazed how many leftists think if we do not go THERE to fight that they will not come HERE instead. Talk about magical thinking from halfwits! Those who want islamic treasonists in our White House, please vote Democrat!
I do support pulling our troops out. I would not want them harmed when Mecca and Medina go up in a mushroom cloud, taking everything in between with it.
Good Mussie. Glowing Mussie.....and thanks for 9/11.
I've cited actual facts, quotes, interviews and lectures by experts that demonstrate the motivations for Islamic terrorist attacks against the United States. Why not try to refute some of it? Or at least acknowledge the evidence I've presented.
Why do we hate ISIS and radical Islamic fundamentalists? Probably because they murdered innocents, are intolerant of other religions, treat women and gays terribly and so forth. But if we want to take the moral high-ground, we cannot tolerate our government murdering innocents in the Muslim world either.
And you absolutely abdicate any right to assume the position of moral superiority if you'd cheer on a Nuclear first-strike against Muslim holy cities.
Can't we have consistent moral principles? If the murder of innocents is wrong, there can be no exceptions, not even for the so-called "indispensable nation".
If we object to radical Muslims waging war against the United States, we shouldn't tolerate the United States waging war against the Muslim world. We can target and bring to justice specific terrorists who commit violence against Americans, but our foreign policy has caused great harm to people who have never done a thing against us.
If you're an absolutely amoral person, then there's probably nothing to be gained by talking to you. On the other hand, if you can accept a principled standard of ethics, you should be able to condemn US war crimes against the Muslim World just as you rightly condemn terrorist war crimes against the American people.
> Soros Tool
Liberals can see a photo of someone leaping to their death from the World Trade Center...and defend Islam. You're that kind of idiot, sonny.
The ragheads were killing each other long before the U.S.A. was formed. They kill each other and others, they don't care as long as they kill.. Unfortunately they breed more, like cockroaches. That part can be fixed.
To a leftist surrender-now artist like yourself, "amoral" means something negative. Unlike the surrender artists like yourself, I want to win. Thinning the Islamic herd and sending a message in the hundreds of thousands: THANKS FOR 9/11 --- now, THAT'S a plan.
Quote from: quiller on September 28, 2016, 03:34:14 PM
> Soros Tool
Liberals can see a photo of someone leaping to their death from the World Trade Center...and defend Islam. You're that kind of idiot, sonny.
The ragheads were killing each other long before the U.S.A. was formed. They kill each other and others, they don't care as long as they kill.. Unfortunately they breed more, like cockroaches. That part can be fixed.
To a leftist surrender-now artist like yourself, "amoral" means something negative. Unlike the surrender artists like yourself, I want to win. Thinning the Islamic herd and sending a message in the hundreds of thousands: THANKS FOR 9/11 --- now, THAT'S a plan.
I'm not a "liberal", nor am I a "Soros tool".
I am a libertarian in the tradition of Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard. I am a libertarian in the tradition of Ludvig von Mises, Frederich Hayek and Frederic Bastiat.
George Soros agitates for bigger government through the financial of political operatives involved in the Democratic Party. I argue for the abolition of government to be replaced by the spontaneous order of the market, private law and private defense.
You are thinking along a fraudulent binary system whereby all political views can be placed into either "liberal" or "conservative" boxes.
It continues to amaze me how you simply refuse to acknowledge the facts that I've presented.
I see pictures of people leaping to their deaths from the twin towers and I blame Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I don't blame the religion of Islam because the motivations of the terrorists who attack us have almost nothing to do with Islam. I've proved this again and again. I've cited quotes from terrorists who have attacked us and I've posted lectures and interviews from experts who have studied this.
Nobody excuses terrorist attacks, but we also cannot excuse the deaths of innocent people at the hands of the United States military. I'm just calling for consistency.
The general anger and resentment that many in the Muslim world feel about the United States is justified and understandable. The purposeful targeting of innocent civilians by terrorists is not excusable.
Ron Paul argued for a foreign policy based on the "golden rule" during the 2012 presidential primaries. He was booed for being a good Christian by un-Christian Evangelicals who, in their bloodlust, forget the teachings of their messiah.
Doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you is a Christian teaching.
If your entire family was destroyed in a drone strike by a foreign nation, how would you feel towards that foreign nation?
This is such an elementary question, but too many conservatives choose to willfully ignore it. They "other-ize" the Muslim world and deprive them of their humanity. I suspect they do this so they don't have to confront the moral guilt they'd feel if they openly saw the devastation wrought by their foreign policy.
Describing Muslims as "cockroaches", "ragheads" and similar dehumanizing terms reveals this.
I suppose you think that the chance birth of a baby into a nation in the middle east means that their lives are forfeit?
During Bill Clinton's decade-long policy of sanctions and routine bombings in Iraq during the 1990s, an estimated 500,000 children died needlessly due to lack of access to food and medicine.
What did these children ever do to us? Why is it permissible that our military snuff out their lives before they had a chance to experience life?
This is the sort of thing that makes moderate Muslims and decent people around the world angry and resentful of the military who carry out such atrocities and the American people who allow it to continue.
This is such goddamn simple common sense. I'm convinced that it takes a willful act of deliberate self-deception to avoid the overwhelming evidence and convince yourselves that people are blowing themselves up to kill Americans simply because the Quran tells them to.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 04:35:56 PM
I'm not a "liberal", nor am I a "Soros tool".
I am a libertarian in the tradition of Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard. I am a libertarian in the tradition of Ludvig von Mises, Frederich Hayek and Frederic Bastiat.
George Soros agitates for bigger government through the financial of political operatives involved in the Democratic Party. I argue for the abolition of government to be replaced by the spontaneous order of the market, private law and private defense.
You are thinking along a fraudulent binary system whereby all political views can be placed into either "liberal" or "conservative" boxes.
It continues to amaze me how you simply refuse to acknowledge the facts that I've presented.
I see pictures of people leaping to their deaths from the twin towers and I blame Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I don't blame the religion of Islam because the motivations of the terrorists who attack us have almost nothing to do with Islam. I've proved this again and again. I've cited quotes from terrorists who have attacked us and I've posted lectures and interviews from experts who have studied this.
Nobody excuses terrorist attacks, but we also cannot excuse the deaths of innocent people at the hands of the United States military. I'm just calling for consistency.
The general anger and resentment that many in the Muslim world feel about the United States is justified and understandable. The purposeful targeting of innocent civilians by terrorists is not excusable.
Ron Paul argued for a foreign policy based on the "golden rule" during the 2012 presidential primaries. He was booed for being a good Christian by un-Christian Evangelicals who, in their bloodlust, forget the teachings of their messiah.
Doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you is a Christian teaching.
If your entire family was destroyed in a drone strike by a foreign nation, how would you feel towards that foreign nation?
This is such an elementary question, but too many conservatives choose to willfully ignore it. They "other-ize" the Muslim world and deprive them of their humanity. I suspect they do this so they don't have to confront the moral guilt they'd feel if they openly saw the devastation wrought by their foreign policy.
Describing Muslims as "cockroaches", "ragheads" and similar dehumanizing terms reveals this.
I suppose you think that the chance birth of a baby into a nation in the middle east means that their lives are forfeit?
During Bill Clinton's decade-long policy of sanctions and routine bombings in Iraq during the 1990s, an estimated 500,000 children died needlessly due to lack of access to food and medicine.
What did these children ever do to us? Why is it permissible that our military snuff out their lives before they had a chance to experience life?
This is the sort of thing that makes moderate Muslims and decent people around the world angry and resentful of the military who carry out such atrocities and the American people who allow it to continue.
This is such goddamn simple common sense. I'm convinced that it takes a willful act of deliberate self-deception to avoid the overwhelming evidence and convince yourselves that people are blowing themselves up to kill Americans simply because the Quran tells them to.
You were warned about derailing topics to the M/E, either get back on subject or stop posting.
(ADDED: > SOROS TOOL )
Your spirited defense of our enemies is noted. Tell that to Europeans who live even closer to terror than we do (although thanks to leftists like you the U.S. variety are indeed emboldened). Islam is a virulent, deadly disease wherever it has gone. It is a stain on homo sapiens, and its defenders either blind fools or witting accomplices.
Quote from: Solar on September 28, 2016, 04:41:27 PM
You were warned about derailing topics to the M/E, either get back on subject or stop posting.
Oh, shucks....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crwbtbqftwgfrdrkxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frdqrkkwrkxbwwtfrtdq%2F1%2F1595431%2F11064197%2Fobamayou_infidel_vote_allah-vi.png&hash=1768a9b866b0dec22073de16065e5e833705c712)
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 04:35:56 PM
I'm not a "liberal", nor am I a "Soros tool".
I am a libertarian in the tradition of Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard. I am a libertarian in the tradition of Ludvig von Mises, Frederich Hayek and Frederic Bastiat.
George Soros agitates for bigger government through the financial of political operatives involved in the Democratic Party. I argue for the abolition of government to be replaced by the spontaneous order of the market, private law and private defense.
You are thinking along a fraudulent binary system whereby all political views can be placed into either "liberal" or "conservative" boxes.
It continues to amaze me how you simply refuse to acknowledge the facts that I've presented.
I see pictures of people leaping to their deaths from the twin towers and I blame Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I don't blame the religion of Islam because the motivations of the terrorists who attack us have almost nothing to do with Islam. I've proved this again and again. I've cited quotes from terrorists who have attacked us and I've posted lectures and interviews from experts who have studied this.
Nobody excuses terrorist attacks, but we also cannot excuse the deaths of innocent people at the hands of the United States military. I'm just calling for consistency.
The general anger and resentment that many in the Muslim world feel about the United States is justified and understandable. The purposeful targeting of innocent civilians by terrorists is not excusable.
Ron Paul argued for a foreign policy based on the "golden rule" during the 2012 presidential primaries. He was booed for being a good Christian by un-Christian Evangelicals who, in their bloodlust, forget the teachings of their messiah.
Doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you is a Christian teaching.
If your entire family was destroyed in a drone strike by a foreign nation, how would you feel towards that foreign nation?
This is such an elementary question, but too many conservatives choose to willfully ignore it. They "other-ize" the Muslim world and deprive them of their humanity. I suspect they do this so they don't have to confront the moral guilt they'd feel if they openly saw the devastation wrought by their foreign policy.
Describing Muslims as "cockroaches", "ragheads" and similar dehumanizing terms reveals this.
I suppose you think that the chance birth of a baby into a nation in the middle east means that their lives are forfeit?
During Bill Clinton's decade-long policy of sanctions and routine bombings in Iraq during the 1990s, an estimated 500,000 children died needlessly due to lack of access to food and medicine.
What did these children ever do to us? Why is it permissible that our military snuff out their lives before they had a chance to experience life?
This is the sort of thing that makes moderate Muslims and decent people around the world angry and resentful of the military who carry out such atrocities and the American people who allow it to continue.
This is such goddamn simple common sense. I'm convinced that it takes a willful act of deliberate self-deception to avoid the overwhelming evidence and convince yourselves that people are blowing themselves up to kill Americans simply because the Quran tells them to.
Your whole damn argument is: had we never fired at shot at them they would have never fired a shot at us and this is where we do not agree. Even without firing a shot we would have been found guilty by the friends we keep meaning Great Britain and others who had fired shots. From Spain, France, Russia, Great Britain and the list goes on and on, have you noticed that the muslins have a problem with them and are spreading their terrorism to these countries also. Is that our fault too? Is everyone but muslims out of step? Some of the terriorist have claimed their acts were in response to attacks, but do you really think they are talking about national attacks here or attacks against muslims? Iran has an elected leader, but who do you think runs that country? Who in iran do you think is calling the shots. How about Afghanistan, Saudi, and the others? Terrorism is spread by muslims, it is their religion not their national policy that is behind their attacks. And no I did not watch your propaganda movies, I have seen enough of that bull shit to last a lifetime.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 02:17:43 PM
Could you even bother to watch at least some of the videos I've posted on this topic? Nearly every major Islamic terrorist attack against the United States over the past twenty years has been motivated entirely or in large part due to resentment over US military intervention into the middle east. And the terrorists who plotted and committed these actions have not been shy about tell us explicitly WHY they were attacking us.
Okay thats it, I said I was finished with this thread but you've managed to piss me of to no end when you start to support the ENEMIES LIES against your own Countrymen.
FROM THE GRAVE this Bastard OBL continues to cause the dissension, the division and the resentment among Americans this videotaped Schpiel was intended to cause. These lies he is spewing on that video are meant to do just that, a fiendishly clever fanatic using a very subtle and sophisticated form of psychological warfare that is a known terror tactic. BLAME THE VICTIM FOR THE CRIME YOU COMMIT, It is like saying some creep is justified in raping a young girl because she is wearing a miniskirt and no Bra, And Like a big dumb ol' catfish chompin' on a stink bait you bit into it.
Did you ever do independent research on the 'Facts'in the OBL video or are you knee jerk bowing before that Jackass Pape and accepting his own convoluted logic as Gospel?
What the hell is the lying old bastard talking about anyhow, PALESTINIANS?..... WHEN WAS THAT? WHEN DID THE BOMBING HE IS REFERENCING IN THE VIDEO TAKE PLACE? After 9/11 when the US Invaded Afghanistan to GET HIM and his band of killers? Horseshit. If he is reffering to the killing of Afghani civilians then HE CAUSED IT when he decided to take over the country HE HAD NO RIGHT TO and waged WAR against the Legitimate residents and indigineous successors like the Northern alliance as I have discussed previously. The Old Prick Killed abused and enslaved more Afghani's than all the US airstrikes to date FELLOW MUSLIMS including Using Civilians as HUMAN SHIELDS LIKE THE COWARD HE IS.
Palestinians he wants to talk about? How about the Palestinians that killed US CItizens Like The scum who shot a wheelchair bound old man, a US Citizen and threw him overboard when they hijacked the Achille Lauro. Palestinians that blow up Israeli school children, and hijack planes killing US Servicemen and Old women...LIKE ENTEBBE?
So 9/11 was is in response to muslim people the US Killed....which as I have already stated is a fraction of the MUSLIMS he and his thugs killed, BUT WHEN was that? WHEN IS HE TALKING ABOUT.
You DO know don't you, that 9/11 was planned by Al Qieda back in 1995 when it first came to the attention of the PHilippine National Police after they arrested one of OBL associates causing mischief in that country They told US officials. But Clinton, who like you hated and hamstrung and downsized the US military, did nothing even when he had the chance to take out OBL, BUT DIDN'T CAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF CIVILIANS his chickenshit ass was hiding amongst.
It was fine for the US and British forces to stop Hitler, who held Arabs in complete contempt from taking over Arab lands. It was okay for the US to supply the Afghani freedom fighters with weapons, arms and aide during their spat with the Russians, and contrary to popular opinion OBL DID NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING FROM THE US even though we tried. It was fine for the US to stop Croats from murdering Ethnic Muslims in the Bosnian war, but the US killed 'Millions' of Muslims....horseshit.
He was so full of hatred towards the US because they had an INFIDEL ARMY supporting the ruling HOUSE OF SAUD whom he hated more than anything, this caused him to flee his country and make mischief elsewhere in the world.
He knew if the Muslim dream of a Caliphate were going to come true the US had to be out of Saudi Arabia and had to be thwarted from preventing such Caliphate RULED BY HIM from coming to fruition.
OBL cooked up this scheme years and years ago, he knew the US had to be nulified if he ever wanted to return to Saudi to establish his Caliphate AND CONTROL MECCA, he was a greedy, power mad mass Murderer. And you or Pape or Fuckging goofy from the cartoons trying to ennoble him as some sort of Justified avenger of the Muslim slaughtered innocents is an extreme distortion of the facts that borders on treason.
STOP IT RIGHT NOW.
And AL AwLaki did more than just "free speech" do your research on that as well, His son was Killed? good, probably being trained by his father in the art of Jihad and spying
And as for your Hero Pape if he ever gets his flannel ass out from behind his desk and actually does something besides 'research' I'll gladly knock him on back his ass just on general principals..
BILLY'S POST TEXT FROM ABOVE.....
==
Okay thats it, I said I was finished with this thread but you've managed to piss me of to no end when you start to support the ENEMIES LIES against your own Countrymen.
FROM THE GRAVE this Bastard OBL continues to cause the dissension, the division and the resentment among Americans this videotaped Schpiel was intended to cause. These lies he is spewing on that video are meant to do just that, a fiendishly clever fanatic using a very subtle and sophisticated form of psychological warfare that is a known terror tactic. BLAME THE VICTIM FOR THE CRIME YOU COMMIT, It is like saying some creep is justified in raping a young girl because she is wearing a miniskirt and no Bra, And Like a big dumb ol' catfish chompin' on a stink bait you bit into it.
Did you ever do independent research on the 'Facts'in the OBL video or are you knee jerk bowing before that Jackass Pape and accepting his own convoluted logic as Gospel?
What the hell is the lying old bastard talking about anyhow, PALESTINIANS?..... WHEN WAS THAT? WHEN DID THE BOMBING HE IS REFERENCING IN THE VIDEO TAKE PLACE? After 9/11 when the US Invaded Afghanistan to GET HIM and his band of killers? Horseshit. If he is reffering to the killing of Afghani civilians then HE CAUSED IT when he decided to take over the country HE HAD NO RIGHT TO and waged WAR against the Legitimate residents and indigineous successors like the Northern alliance as I have discussed previously. The Old Prick Killed abused and enslaved more Afghani's than all the US airstrikes to date FELLOW MUSLIMS including Using Civilians as HUMAN SHIELDS LIKE THE COWARD HE IS.
Palestinians he wants to talk about? How about the Palestinians that killed US CItizens Like The scum who shot a wheelchair bound old man, a US Citizen and threw him overboard when they hijacked the Achille Lauro. Palestinians that blow up Israeli school children, and hijack planes killing US Servicemen and Old women...LIKE ENTEBBE?
So 9/11 was is in response to muslim people the US Killed....which as I have already stated is a fraction of the MUSLIMS he and his thugs killed, BUT WHEN was that? WHEN IS HE TALKING ABOUT.
You DO know don't you, that 9/11 was planned by Al Qieda back in 1995 when it first came to the attention of the PHilippine National Police after they arrested one of OBL associates causing mischief in that country They told US officials. But Clinton, who like you hated and hamstrung and downsized the US military, did nothing even when he had the chance to take out OBL, BUT DIDN'T CAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF CIVILIANS his chickenshit ass was hiding amongst.
It was fine for the US and British forces to stop Hitler, who held Arabs in complete contempt from taking over Arab lands. It was okay for the US to supply the Afghani freedom fighters with weapons, arms and aide during their spat with the Russians, and contrary to popular opinion OBL DID NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING FROM THE US even though we tried. It was fine for the US to stop Croats from murdering Ethnic Muslims in the Bosnian war, but the US killed 'Millions' of Muslims....horseshit.
He was so full of hatred towards the US because they had an INFIDEL ARMY supporting the ruling HOUSE OF SAUD whom he hated more than anything, this caused him to flee his country and make mischief elsewhere in the world.
He knew if the Muslim dream of a Caliphate were going to come true the US had to be out of Saudi Arabia and had to be thwarted from preventing such Caliphate RULED BY HIM from coming to fruition.
OBL cooked up this scheme years and years ago, he knew the US had to be nulified if he ever wanted to return to Saudi to establish his Caliphate AND CONTROL MECCA, he was a greedy, power mad mass Murderer. And you or Pape or Fuckging goofy from the cartoons trying to ennoble him as some sort of Justified avenger of the Muslim slaughtered innocents is an extreme distortion of the facts that borders on treason.
STOP IT RIGHT NOW.
And as for your Hero Pape if he ever gets his flannel ass out from behind his desk and actually does something besides 'research' I'll gladly knock him on back his ass just on general principals..
== (END OF QUOTE)
I think if I were to try and fix that post I would mess it up.
Quote from: walkstall on September 28, 2016, 05:52:07 PM
I think if I were to try and fix that post I would mess it up.
And that's why I treated it, above, as I did. I hope Billy approves.
Quote from: quiller on September 28, 2016, 05:56:58 PM
And that's why I treated it, above, as I did. I hope Billy approves.
Glad you did, I messed it up to begin with but instead of straightening it out I was so damn mad I had to go down and punch the body bag for a few minutes, arthritis and all.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 28, 2016, 06:08:28 PM
Glad you did, I messed it up to begin with but instead of straightening it out I was so damn mad I had to go down and punch the body bag for a few minutes, arthritis and all.
That's ok Billy, these kids will vote themselves free stuff. But will not lift a hand to keep there free speech.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet
[quite] Okay thats it, I said I was finished with this thread but you've managed to piss me of to no end when you start to support the ENEMIES LIES against your own Countrymen.
FROM THE GRAVE this Bastard OBL continues to cause the dissension, the division and the resentment among Americans this videotaped Schpiel was intended to cause. These lies he is spewing on that video are meant to do just that, a fiendishly clever fanatic using a very subtle and sophisticated form of psychological warfare that is a known terror tactic. BLAME THE VICTIM FOR THE CRIME YOU COMMIT, It is like saying some creep is justified in raping a young girl because she is wearing a miniskirt and no Bra, And Like a big dumb ol' catfish chompin' on a stink bait you bit into it.
Did you ever do independent research on the 'Facts'in the OBL video or are you knee jerk bowing before that Jackass Pape and accepting his own convoluted logic as Gospel?
What the hell is the lying old bastard talking about anyhow, PALESTINIANS?..... WHEN WAS THAT? WHEN DID THE BOMBING HE IS REFERENCING IN THE VIDEO TAKE PLACE? After 9/11 when the US Invaded Afghanistan to GET HIM and his band of killers? Horseshit. If he is reffering to the killing of Afghani civilians then HE CAUSED IT when he decided to take over the country HE HAD NO RIGHT TO and waged WAR against the Legitimate residents and indigineous successors like the Northern alliance as I have discussed previously. The Old Prick Killed abused and enslaved more Afghani's than all the US airstrikes to date FELLOW MUSLIMS including Using Civilians as HUMAN SHIELDS LIKE THE COWARD HE IS.
Palestinians he wants to talk about? How about the Palestinians that killed US CItizens Like The scum who shot a wheelchair bound old man, a US Citizen and threw him overboard when they hijacked the Achille Lauro. Palestinians that blow up Israeli school children, and hijack planes killing US Servicemen and Old women...LIKE ENTEBBE?
So 9/11 was is in response to muslim people the US Killed....which as I have already stated is a fraction of the MUSLIMS he and his thugs killed, BUT WHEN was that? WHEN IS HE TALKING ABOUT.
You DO know don't you, that 9/11 was planned by Al Qieda back in 1995 when it first came to the attention of the PHilippine National Police after they arrested one of OBL associates causing mischief in that country They told US officials. But Clinton, who like you hated and hamstrung and downsized the US military, did nothing even when he had the chance to take out OBL, BUT DIDN'T CAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF CIVILIANS his chickenshit ass was hiding amongst.
It was fine for the US and British forces to stop Hitler, who held Arabs in complete contempt from taking over Arab lands. It was okay for the US to supply the Afghani freedom fighters with weapons, arms and aide during their spat with the Russians, and contrary to popular opinion OBL DID NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING FROM THE US even though we tried. It was fine for the US to stop Croats from murdering Ethnic Muslims in the Bosnian war, but the US killed 'Millions' of Muslims....horseshit.
He was so full of hatred towards the US because they had an INFIDEL ARMY supporting the ruling HOUSE OF SAUD whom he hated more than anything, this caused him to flee his country and make mischief elsewhere in the world.
He knew if the Muslim dream of a Caliphate were going to come true the US had to be out of Saudi Arabia and had to be thwarted from preventing such Caliphate RULED BY HIM from coming to fruition.
OBL cooked up this scheme years and years ago, he knew the US had to be nulified if he ever wanted to return to Saudi to establish his Caliphate AND CONTROL MECCA, he was a greedy, power mad mass Murderer. And you or Pape or Fuckging goofy from the cartoons trying to ennoble him as some sort of Justified avenger of the Muslim slaughtered innocents is an extreme distortion of the facts that borders on treason.
STOP IT RIGHT NOW.
And AL AwLaki did more than just "free speech" do your research on that as well, His son was Killed? good, probably being trained by his father in the art of Jihad and spying
And as for your Hero Pape if he ever gets his flannel ass out from behind his desk and actually does something besides 'research' I'll gladly knock him on back his ass just on general principals..
Do you understand that I am not defending any terrorist attacks, least of all the attacks on 9/11? What I am saying is that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were motivated primarily by resentment over US occupation of Muslim nations and war crimes committed against the Muslim people. Osama said it explicitly as have nearly all terrorist attackers since.
Yes, Osama was also angry at the United States for supporting Israel and turning a blind eye to war crimes committed against the Palestinian people. In my opinion, the United States should not be supporting Israel financially and we should not be afraid to speak out in support of a two-State solution. Nor should we be afraid to criticize Israel for their shoddy treatment of the Palestinian people on the West Bank.
If you create an atmosphere of general resentment towards the United States due to your constant interventions into the middle east, it is logical that this would foster a resentment and some people will seek drastic measures to fight back. I don't condone the purposeful targeting of civilians (I keep repeating this because you don't seem to get it) but the general anger that gives rise to terrorist attacks is something that can be understood.
Osama bin Laden is a bastard, all right? I'm not condoning his actions whatsoever. But he and Al Qaeda were not capable of killing the numbers of people that the US military has.
I agree with one thing you said though. Bill Clinton COULD have killed Osama bin Laden and he should have. Also, there was plenty of evidence that suggested a planned attack against the World Trade Center. Bill Clinton is culpable in not acting upon this intelligence and George W. Bush is culpable as well.
But Bill Clinton is ALSO culpable in repeatedly bombing Iraq and imposing crippling sanctions against that country for the entire duration of his presidency.
You did make a startling claim though. You said that Osama bin Laden has killed many more Muslims than the United States military. This is absolutely false. It's ludicrously false. Even before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the United States military had killed, directly or indirectly, hundreds of thousands, and likely as much as one million Muslims just during the 1990s. And estimates are that the United States has killed over a million more since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Are you honestly claiming that Osama bin Laden is personally responsible for killing two million Muslims? Do you just make up facts?
Of course, murder is murder. Saying that someone has not killed as many people as the United States military is faint praise, after all. I'm not even intending to praise Osama bin Laden at all. I'm only making the factual point that the United States military has killed vastly more Muslims over the past twenty five years than Muslims have killed Americans. This is an absolute fact. If you want to dispute this, I'd ask you to cite hard statistics and prove your case. Don't just make vacuous assertions.
There was an important article written on this subject by Stephen Walt:
QuoteTom Friedman had an especially fatuous column in Sunday's New York Times, which is saying something given his well-established capacity for smug self-assurance. According to Friedman, the big challenge we face in the Arab and Islamic world is "the Narrative" — his patronizing term for Muslim views about America's supposedly negative role in the region. If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny." He concedes that we made a few mistakes here and there (such as at Abu Ghraib), but the real problem is all those anti-American fairy tales that Muslims tell each other to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.
I heard a different take on this subject at a recent conference on U.S. relations with the Islamic world. In addition to hearing a diverse set of views from different Islamic countries, one of the other participants (a prominent English journalist) put it quite simply. "If the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world," he said, "it should stop killing Muslims."
Now I don't think the issue is quite that simple, but the comment got me thinking: How many Muslims has the United States killed in the past thirty years, and how many Americans have been killed by Muslims? Coming up with a precise answer to this question is probably impossible, but it is also not necessary, because the rough numbers are so clearly lopsided.
Here's my back-of-the-envelope analysis, based on estimates deliberately chosen to favor the United States. Specifically, I have taken the low estimates of Muslim fatalities, along with much more reliable figures for U.S. deaths.
To repeat: I have deliberately selected "low-end" estimates for Muslim fatalities, so these figures present the "best case" for the United States. Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of "excess deaths" in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost.
Please read the entire article:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/30/why-they-hate-us-ii-how-many-muslims-has-the-u-s-killed-in-the-past-30-years/
And, please explain the justification for killing Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son? Both were American citizens who had the Constitutional right to due process. You can't claim to be "Constitutional Conservatives" one minute, then abandon it when the founding document gets in the way of murdering Muslims.
Pulled post out of quote I hope.
walks.
Quote from: walkstall on September 28, 2016, 06:19:53 PM
That's ok Billy, these kids will vote themselves free stuff. But will not lift a hand to keep there free speech.
I don't want "free stuff". Why do you all keep insisting that I am a liberal? I've stated it plainly again and again. I am a radical libertarian. This means that I support either a VERY limited State, or the complete abolition of the State. I'm against the Welfare State, I'm against Socialism and I am in favor of the free market.
The politician that I identify with the most is Ron Paul. I have a few minor disagreements with him, but if you want to know what my political views are, you could look at what Ron Paul has written and you'd have a pretty good idea.
Yes, I'm younger than y'all but that doesn't mean I'm clueless.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 07:51:07 PM
I don't want "free stuff". Why do you all keep insisting that I am a liberal? I've stated it plainly again and again. I am a radical libertarian. This means that I support either a VERY limited State, or the complete abolition of the State. I'm against the Welfare State, I'm against Socialism and I am in favor of the free market.
The politician that I identify with the most is Ron Paul. I have a few minor disagreements with him, but if you want to know what my political views are, you could look at what Ron Paul has written and you'd have a pretty good idea.
Yes, I'm younger than y'all but that doesn't mean I'm clueless.
Not according to the BS your flinging young man. You read books but you have not live what we have lived through. Have you live any place other than your nose in a book and a class room?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 07:51:07 PM
Yes, I'm younger than y'all but that doesn't mean I'm clueless.
Younger? Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.
Clueless? Try naive. Your presenting a wold that doesn't exist. As I said in an earlier post (which you never answered) Human history is NOT the history of making friends.
They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).
The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?
In all that research, did you find the answer to those questions?
A little one sided, don't you think?
Quote from: walkstall on September 28, 2016, 08:14:34 PM
Not according to the BS your flinging young man. You read books but you have not live what we have lived through. Have you live any place other than your nose in a book and a class room?
Older people have the benefit of experience that younger people don't have. We all know that. But in a discourse, we try to arrive at the truth through argumentation.
Speaking down to me because I'm younger does not qualify as an argument. It actually doesn't serve any purpose.
Ya'll seem
extremely dismissive of empirical data, studies and the work of journalists and professors. The only links I've seen any of you post in response to anything I've said are extremely biased anti-Muslim websites like "TheReligionofPeace". I usually weed out polemics and seek hard data. I admire Robert Pape because he is very rigorous and scientific. He makes all his data available for anyone to look over. He's very much a scientist and he doesn't allow his preconceived notions to color his conclusions.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 08:29:16 PM
Ya'll seem extremely dismissive of empirical data, studies and the work of journalists and professors.
Journalist are mostly liberal. Professors are mostly liberal. So your so called empirical data is mostly biased.
Quote
The only links I've seen any of you post in response to anything I've said are extremely biased anti-Muslim websites like "TheReligionofPeace". I usually weed out polemics and seek hard data.
Seems to me you weed out the hard data and seek out the liberal point of view
Quote
I admire Robert Pape because he is very rigorous and scientific. He makes all his data available for anyone to look over. He's very much a scientist and he doesn't allow his preconceived notions to color his conclusions.
You mean Robert Pape, one of Obama's advisors? Another unbiased source [sarc]
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 28, 2016, 08:15:51 PM
Younger? Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.
Clueless? Try naive. Your presenting a wold that doesn't exist. As I said in an earlier post (which you never answered) Human history is NOT the history of making friends.
They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).
The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?
In all that research, did you find the answer to those questions?
A little one sided, don't you think?
American foreign policy is largely driven by war profiteering and the misguided notion that we have to "project strength". Our foreign policy is also largely driven by the ideology of Neo-Conservatism, which is heavily influenced by lobbying efforts from the State of Israel.
The Israel Lobby is hugely influential in American politics. It was Netanyahu who was primarily responsible for starting the propaganda against Iran regarding their fictitious nuclear weapons program. It's kind of odd how Iran was "on the verge" of having a nuclear weapon for over 21 years without anyone demonstrating a shred of evidence in support of that fact.
As old-school conservatives, I'm sure you could appreciate how radical neo-conservatives hijacked the Republican Party and used it in support of their vision of Big Government. For a bit of perspective on Neoconservatism, this article serves as a good overview:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052303.html
Neoconservatives were originally radicals
on the Left who took over the Republican Party during the 1980s. Dick Cheney, George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Jonah Goldberg and Weekly Standard editor Bill Krystol are among the most prominent of the neocons.
They believe in military intervention and the projection of strength throughout the world. They see the United States as the "indispensable nation" and it's our job to "lead" the world and involve ourselves in determining the outcome of conflicts that are really none of our business. So they support the building and maintenance of bases in other countries, the propping up of puppet dictators who will do our bidding and serving the military interests of the State of Israel.
There is a Neo-Mercantalist ideology involved in all of this as well. Military interventions into other countries, especially the Middle East, have a lot to do with capturing natural resources. Securing a consistent supply of oil played a huge role in US intervention into the middle east.
The record is pretty clear. The United States military has killed exponentially more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans over the past thirty years. Nobody has said that when any group of criminals commits violent acts against Americans, they shouldn't be captured and brought to justice. But we can certainly cease with the intervention, the unprovoked bombings, the nation-building, the maintenance of bases and embassies, and the interference into the elections of other nations.
It would help matters immensely if conservatives like yourselves would cease speaking of Muslims in gross generalities and instead be mindful and open to how reasonable and peaceful Muslims feel about US foreign policy.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 08:50:40 PM
American foreign policy is largely driven by war profiteering and the misguided notion that we have to "project strength". Our foreign policy is also largely driven by the ideology of Neo-Conservatism, which is heavily influenced by lobbying efforts from the State of Israel.
The Israel Lobby is hugely influential in American politics. It was Netanyahu who was primarily responsible for starting the propaganda against Iran regarding their fictitious nuclear weapons program. It's kind of odd how Iran was "on the verge" of having a nuclear weapon for over 21 years without anyone demonstrating a shred of evidence in support of that fact.
As old-school conservatives, I'm sure you could appreciate how radical neo-conservatives hijacked the Republican Party and used it in support of their vision of Big Government. For a bit of perspective on Neoconservatism, this article serves as a good overview:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052303.html
Neoconservatives were originally radicals on the Left who took over the Republican Party during the 1980s. Dick Cheney, George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Jonah Goldberg and Weekly Standard editor Bill Krystol are among the most prominent of the neocons.
They believe in military intervention and the projection of strength throughout the world. They see the United States as the "indispensable nation" and it's our job to "lead" the world and involve ourselves in determining the outcome of conflicts that are really none of our business. So they support the building and maintenance of bases in other countries, the propping up of puppet dictators who will do our bidding and serving the military interests of the State of Israel.
There is a Neo-Mercantalist ideology involved in all of this as well. Military interventions into other countries, especially the Middle East, have a lot to do with capturing natural resources. Securing a consistent supply of oil played a huge role in US intervention into the middle east.
The record is pretty clear. The United States military has killed exponentially more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans over the past thirty years. Nobody has said that when any group of criminals commits violent acts against Americans, they shouldn't be captured and brought to justice. But we can certainly cease with the intervention, the unprovoked bombings, the nation-building, the maintenance of bases and embassies, and the interference into the elections of other nations.
It would help matters immensely if conservatives like yourselves would cease speaking of Muslims in gross generalities and instead be mindful and open to how reasonable and peaceful Muslims feel about US foreign policy.
You didn't answer the question; you just spouted a lot of talking points.
Try again.
They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).
The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 08:29:16 PM
Older people have the benefit of experience that younger people don't have. We all know that. But in a discourse, we try to arrive at the truth through argumentation.
Speaking down to me because I'm younger does not qualify as an argument. It actually doesn't serve any purpose.
Ya'll seem extremely dismissive of empirical data, studies and the work of journalists and professors. The only links I've seen any of you post in response to anything I've said are extremely biased anti-Muslim websites like "TheReligionofPeace". I usually weed out polemics and seek hard data. I admire Robert Pape because he is very rigorous and scientific. He makes all his data available for anyone to look over. He's very much a scientist and he doesn't allow his preconceived notions to color his conclusions.
No it's just that I am 3 if not 4 time older then you. I am not PC and full of BS, I call it as I see it. Pape is a scientist in your opinion. He just a damn book pusher in my opinion. I have given more books away in my first 40 years then you have read in your life time.
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 28, 2016, 08:37:24 PM
Journalist are mostly liberal. Professors are mostly liberal. So your so called empirical data is mostly biased.
Seems to me you weed out the hard data and seek out the liberal point of view
You mean Robert Pape, one of Obama's advisors? Another unbiased source [sarc]
There are very good journalists who are liberal and very good journalists who are conservatives. The litmus test we should apply is whether they are doing good journalism.
The idea that journalists are mostly liberal and professors are most liberal, therefore you can dismiss journalism and empirical data out of hand is incredibly misguided.
Robert Pape also lent his knowledge and advice to the George W. Bush administration. Of course they didn't heed his advice, and it doesn't look like Obama is either.
Pape is not a partisan. I don't even know what his political views are. I only know his scientific work on chronicling every worldwide terrorist attack since 1980 and looking into what motivates the attackers.
You should also recognize that Michael Scheuer, who I also cited, is a very conservative person politically. He worked at the CIA as the leading expert on Osama bin Laden, so I think his experience and knowledge of Al Qaeda and the motivations for their attacks should be taken seriously.
So, you are assuming Pape is on the Left. I don't know this to be a fact, but I'll assume it is for arguments sake. Well Scheuer is a Conservative. And Chalmers Johnson is essentially a libertarian.
So I've cited experts from across the political spectrum who agree on this issue. How is that cherry-picking liberal views?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 09:03:18 PM
There are very good journalists who are liberal and very good journalists who are conservatives. The litmus test we should apply is whether they are doing good journalism.
The idea that journalists are mostly liberal and professors are most liberal, therefore you can dismiss journalism and empirical data out of hand is incredibly misguided.
No, what's incredibly misguided is expecting a liberal to give you anything other than a talking point, spin, or distortion of the truth. When a liberal belches, it's for political reasons.
A perfect example is you spouting talking point in response to the questions I asked. I asked them again and you still refuse to answer.
Once again:
They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).
The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?
Quote
Robert Pape also lent his knowledge and advice to the George W. Bush administration. Of course they didn't heed his advice, and it doesn't look like Obama is either.
Pape is not a partisan. I don't even know what his political views are.
Obama wouldn't have an advisor that wasn't a carbon copy of his viewpoint.
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 28, 2016, 09:14:31 PM
No, what's incredibly misguided is expecting a liberal to give you anything other than a talking point, spin, or distortion of the truth. When a liberal belches, it's for political reasons.
A perfect example is you spouting talking point in response to the questions I asked. I asked them again and you still refuse to answer.
Once again:
They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).
The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?
Obama wouldn't have an advisor that wasn't a carbon copy of his viewpoint.
Could you specify in what capacity Pape is an adviser to President Obama? And, furthermore, could you elaborate on why this relationship renders Pape's views suspect?
There are a large number of people who contract with the government or offer their expertise to various departments in the government without regard to who happens to be President at the moment. Robert Pape is a very well-respected foreign policy analyst who has made himself available to the CIA and our military as an adviser.
I want you to be very specific in precisely what you are insinuating in regards to Pape's work, character and integrity.
I actually DID answer your questions, but you obviously lack reading comprehension skills.
Here are some of the reasons why we intervene into the middle east:
1. War profiteering
2. Fighting Israel's wars for them
3. Mercantalism, which means that we covet the natural resources that many of these countries have
4. The desire to exert influence in choosing which leaders rise to power in which countries
Borne out of World War 2, we saw the emergence of a massive military industrial complex. This is what President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech. This was essentially a permanent war economy. During the Cold War, the military industrial complex prospered, building up arms to supposedly protect against the Soviet menace.
During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and his administration financed and supported the radicalization of various Muslim groups in an effort to fight against the Soviet Union, who were then occupying Afghanistan. The US military and CIA went so far as to establish and support various Madrasas in the Middle East and they even pushed the idea that Soviet occupation constituted an attack against their religion. This was not a hard sell, but the US government actively financed religious fundamentalism during this period. These radical Muslims were called the Mujahideen.
These were OUR radical Muslims, as long as they served our purposes.
Then the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War was over. Now, we could have gotten a peace dividend, cut back on our military spending, reduced our Nuclear Weapons arsenal, and closed down foreign military bases. We no longer needed to be so militaristic since our greatest nemesis was no more.
Okay, but what about the Permanent War Economy that had been prospering for decades during the Cold War? These lobbyists would not appreciate losing their lucrative subsidies and government contracts.
So George H.W. Bush stabbed Reagan's Mujahideen in the back, and started the War in the Persian Gulf. We no longer had any need for the Mujahideen that our CIA had trained and financed.
Our military establishment sought new enemies to justify it's existence. So, Saddam Hussein was portrayed as "the next Hitler" and the War Economy persisted. After the War in the Persian Gulf ended, we continued bombing Iraq, imposing brutal sanctions against that country and intervening in various ways throughout the region throughout the 1990s.
This created a great deal of anger and resentment throughout the Muslim world. In 1993, Ramzi Yousef committed the first attack against the World Trade Center.
He said, among other things:
"Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites."He did not call the United States "terrorists" and "butchers" because we allow women to go to college. He said these things because he perceived the United States as supported Israel in their oppression of the Palestinians. He saw the United States military as having used and betrayed the Muslim people during the 1980s and during the War in the Persian Gulf.
Yousef also said:
"If the U.S. government keeps supporting Israel ... then we will continue to carry out operations inside and outside the United States... All people who support the U.S. government are our targets in our future plans, and that is because all those people are responsible for their government's actions and they support the U.S. foreign policy and are satisfied with it."This is the goddamned motivation, like I've been saying over and over. I could fill up one hundred pages of quotes from Islamic terrorists explaining that they are attacking the United States because of our foreign policy. You can have any opinion about these people that you want, but this is what
they believe and why they commit the terrorist acts that they do.
Have I more fully answered your question about what motivated the United States military to intervene into the middle east? Hopefully I've provided some much needed historical context as well.
Oh wow, another Dump Israel troll. Yeah, sonny, evvvvvvvvvvry problem is the Jews, right? Right? Putz!
Quote from: quiller on September 29, 2016, 02:59:03 AM
Oh wow, another Dump Israel troll. Yeah, sonny, evvvvvvvvvvry problem is the Jews, right? Right? Putz!
Think you nailed it. There are two sides to every war, and we know which side he stands on. He's not a liberal? Well he is part of the blame America first crowd. Obama could not have said it better.
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2016, 08:18:40 PM
OK. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to create your own facts.
I've been skimming this thread for awhile now and it's obvious you're completely oblivious and ignorant to history. I can appreciate the fact that you hate war, we all hate war, but war is merely a mirrored image and an amplification of human nature, sometimes it's failed politics, and sometimes it bruised egos, but in this case, it's a political system disguised as a religion, one of conquer and destruction.
Look up Barbary Pirates and why we have a Navy today. So cut the idiocy and learn something for a change!
Just dump his ass. It is all a repeat of BS.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 07:44:27 PM
Do you understand that I am not defending any terrorist attacks, least of all the attacks on 9/11? What I am saying is that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were motivated primarily by resentment over US occupation of Muslim nations and war crimes committed against the Muslim people. Osama said it explicitly as have nearly all terrorist attackers since.
Yes, Osama was also angry at the United States for supporting Israel and turning a blind eye to war crimes committed against the Palestinian people. In my opinion, the United States should not be supporting Israel financially and we should not be afraid to speak out in support of a two-State solution. Nor should we be afraid to criticize Israel for their shoddy treatment of the Palestinian people on the West Bank.
If you create an atmosphere of general resentment towards the United States due to your constant interventions into the middle east, it is logical that this would foster a resentment and some people will seek drastic measures to fight back. I don't condone the purposeful targeting of civilians (I keep repeating this because you don't seem to get it) but the general anger that gives rise to terrorist attacks is something that can be understood.
Osama bin Laden is a bastard, all right? I'm not condoning his actions whatsoever. But he and Al Qaeda were not capable of killing the numbers of people that the US military has.
I agree with one thing you said though. Bill Clinton COULD have killed Osama bin Laden and he should have. Also, there was plenty of evidence that suggested a planned attack against the World Trade Center. Bill Clinton is culpable in not acting upon this intelligence and George W. Bush is culpable as well.
But Bill Clinton is ALSO culpable in repeatedly bombing Iraq and imposing crippling sanctions against that country for the entire duration of his presidency.
You did make a startling claim though. You said that Osama bin Laden has killed many more Muslims than the United States military. This is absolutely false. It's ludicrously false. Even before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the United States military had killed, directly or indirectly, hundreds of thousands, and likely as much as one million Muslims just during the 1990s. And estimates are that the United States has killed over a million more since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Are you honestly claiming that Osama bin Laden is personally responsible for killing two million Muslims? Do you just make up facts?
Of course, murder is murder. Saying that someone has not killed as many people as the United States military is faint praise, after all. I'm not even intending to praise Osama bin Laden at all. I'm only making the factual point that the United States military has killed vastly more Muslims over the past twenty five years than Muslims have killed Americans. This is an absolute fact. If you want to dispute this, I'd ask you to cite hard statistics and prove your case. Don't just make vacuous assertions.
There was an important article written on this subject by Stephen Walt:
Please read the entire article:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/30/why-they-hate-us-ii-how-many-muslims-has-the-u-s-killed-in-the-past-30-years/
And, please explain the justification for killing Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son? Both were American citizens who had the Constitutional right to due process. You can't claim to be "Constitutional Conservatives" one minute, then abandon it when the founding document gets in the way of murdering Muslims.
Pulled post out of quote I hope.
walks.
Lets get Al-Awlaki out of the way first, killing him was the only thing Obmao did right IMHO, even leftist CNN agrees on that, it would be no different than killing Hitlers Propaganda secretary
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/11/opinion/bergen-american-terrorism-leader-paris-attack/
Now lets chip away at the rest of your bullshit.
OF COURSE THE US KILLED MUSLIMS in the 1990's
Most of them were the Iraqi army who invaded Kuwait and unchecked would have rolled into Saudi and robbed OBL of his chance to become the big cheese. OBL mourning the "murder" of Saddam's Iraqi soldiers
His mortal enemy is almost laughable. And yes the US has armed and supported Isreal as they are beseiged by Palestinian terror campaigns financed by hostile countries. Vicariously, one could claim that when Isreal hits back after a Palestinian terror attack the scum killed by the IDF using an American made Apache helicopter is vicariously killing Muslims....even though something like 20% of Palestinians claim to be Christian.
So OBL was angry at US forces for Killing Muslim's.... his enemies (Saddam's army) who invaded another Muslim country and were killing Muslims and likely would have extended his invasion to the other Gulf States and quite Likely again OBL's home country Saudi Arabia making it impossible for him to return as the conquering hero ousting the house of Saud.
You see how ludicrous your (Pape's) position seems in that light of practicality?
Now I do agree that one of the biggest 'sin's' the US has committed in Radical Islamic Jihadi's eyes is support of Israel.
You really think they want a peaceful coexistience with Israel in some type of shared country with Palestinians? BULLSHIT! They want every last Jew on earth dead. That goal begins when they
intimidate us away from our aly in the ME Israel, and when Israel has NO SUPPORT FROM THE US....
here comes WW3 and guess what THEY WILL POP NUKES, and they will pop them against hostile MUSLIM COUNTRIES and kill millions and Millions of Muzz if it looks like they are going down. Of course Muzz don;t care about loss of life, they care about their power mad scheme's to make the world bend to their insane religion.
Of course they cite the US intervention as their reasons for war, without the US they have a clearer path. So while they want the US to stop interfering in the politics and climate of the Middle east THEY INTERFERE IN OTHER COUNTRIES EXPORTING THEIR RADICAL ISLAM AND TERRORISM. MURDERING CIVILIANS INCLUDING OTHER MUSLIMS. I SAW THAT WITH MY OWN EYES.
These attacks took place in the following countries I worked in from 1999 to 2008. East Timor, Indonesia,Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand (Southern Thailand especially) Philippines, the later especially influenced by the Arab Wahabbi Jihadists who finance a number of terror orgs war against the Govt. SO don;t try and sell me you or Pape's convoluted bullshit, I KNOW BETTER.
EACH ONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES SAW A RISE IN POST 2001 TERROR ATTACKS BY MUSLIMS WHO CLAIMED ALLEGIANCE TO OR were EMBOLDENED BY OBL and AL-Q'EDA.
So add hypocracy to the list of Radical Muslim Jihadi's list of sins.
Now we get to the murder and rapine of Muslim's directly under OBL's terror orgs in Afghanistan and Yemen. Obl after fighting the Russians stayed on in the country using the radical taliban as his vehicle to try and dominate the country, this post Russian war was responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of Afghani's and the imposition of strict Shari law standards, women were MURDERED for not wearing Full Prhadia or for gambling at their traditional cock fights and horse races. Of course he was in open warfare against the legitimate residents and inhabitants in the Northern Alliance responsible for killing thousands of NA soldiers AND SUPPORTING CIVILIANS under Amad Shah Mossoud and of course his assassination. You can read about it in this article the crimes and massacres of the taliban were at their most around 1997 on.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/afghanistan/
Then we have OBL's meddling in Yemen and the deaths he caused there
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2016/4/5/bin-laden-yemen-and-al-qaedas-strategy
OBL ensconced himself in among the AFghani citizenry, storing munitions, arms and supplies in such places as schools, Mosques and hospitals, any
COLLATERAL DAMAGE to (Muslim) civilians was his fault of course we killed his soldiers, his Al Qeada muslim operatives by the score, so yeah again we killed SOLDIERS who Muslim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/09/afghanistan-insurgents-civilian-victims
Here's something else you rarely hear, OBL attacked the US because he thought the time was right, he saw the 2000 election which caused so much division and dissension among Americans as his great chance, HE NEVER THOUGHT AMERICANS WOULD RALLY BEHIND GEO BUSH and come kick his ass so soundly. OBL discussed this with other AQ leaders at the time, they too expressed surprise at the ferocity of the US Juggernaut, believing that the DOWNSIZED US MILITARY UNDER CLINTON would not be immediately capable of such an assault. They were also somewhat disappointed that Muslims world wide did not rise up and turn on the US as they thought.
So that's another lesson to the fools who believe a downsized military.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crrskrqrrdsgwgksxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fsfwgbgsbqxwgqrfgwxwfstwfdtf%2F1%2F1595431%2F12754402%2Fgmc12951120150410080500-vi.jpg&hash=484aa0571076ab428efdaaaaf15da2b21b63bba8)
I suppose that's off-topic here. Maybe. :biggrin:
Quote from: s3779m on September 29, 2016, 04:20:15 AM
Think you nailed it. There are two sides to every war, and we know which side he stands on. He's not a liberal? Well he is part of the blame America first crowd. Obama could not have said it better.
See above. :biggrin:
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 28, 2016, 11:56:22 PM
Could you specify in what capacity Pape is an adviser to President Obama? And, furthermore, could you elaborate on why this relationship renders Pape's views suspect?
There are a large number of people who contract with the government or offer their expertise to various departments in the government without regard to who happens to be President at the moment. Robert Pape is a very well-respected foreign policy analyst who has made himself available to the CIA and our military as an adviser.
As I've told you, Obama would not have an advisor with a view contrary to his. Obama's ego wouldn't allow it.
Quote
I want you to be very specific in precisely what you are insinuating in regards to Pape's work, character and integrity.
You mean like I want you to be specific in the following:
They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).
The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?
Rather you gave me a bunch of liberal talking points (which, by the way, you did again).
Quote
I actually DID answer your questions, but you obviously lack reading comprehension skills.
Or I have a very effective b.s. detector.
Quote
Here are some of the reasons why we intervene into the middle east:
1. War profiteering
2. Fighting Israel's wars for them
3. Mercantalism, which means that we covet the natural resources that many of these countries have
4. The desire to exert influence in choosing which leaders rise to power in which countries
Didn't ask for b.s. I asked:
They're mad at us because of what we did to them, you say. So why did we do it to them? Why aren't they taking responsibility for what they did (to make us do what we did).
The US military killed their citizens, you say. Why? We don't intervene without reason, so what was the reason?
Now what specifically did they do to us to get us to respond to them aggressively?
This is like being a cop arriving at the scene of a fight. One side is screaming the other side hit them. The cop should ask, why? People don't hit people without cause.
Nor do nations kill other nation's citizens without cause. So, without tap dancing around the facts, what caused the US to be aggressive?
Yadda...yadda...yadda. More talking points snipped.
I'm a simple man, so please quit making up in length what your reasoning lacks in depth. Someone was hit, why?
Quote from: quiller on September 29, 2016, 02:59:03 AM
Oh wow, another Dump Israel troll. Yeah, sonny, evvvvvvvvvvry problem is the Jews, right? Right? Putz!
I never said any of that. The United States should treat Israel like we treat any other country. They are a very wealthy nation, they have a very strong military and Nuclear arsenal and they don't need our subsidization.
I am not critical of Jews or the Jewish religion. I am critical of the Likud Party in Israel and the politics espoused by Benjamin Netanyahu. There is a difference between the Likud Party and the Jewish people. There are many Jews living in Israel who support a two-State solution and feel that their government has not treated the Palestinian people fairly.
Why not cut Israel loose and allow them to take care of themselves?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 29, 2016, 10:43:23 AM
I never said any of that. The United States should treat Israel like we treat any other country. They are a very wealthy nation, they have a very strong military and Nuclear arsenal and they don't need our subsidization.
I am not critical of Jews or the Jewish religion. I am critical of the Likud Party in Israel and the politics espoused by Benjamin Netanyahu. There is a difference between the Likud Party and the Jewish people. There are many Jews living in Israel who support a two-State solution and feel that their government has not treated the Palestinian people fairly.
Why not cut Israel loose and allow them to take care of themselves?
WHY not cut the Palestinian loose and allow them to take care of themselves?
Many more voted in the Likud Party.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-rLHpEHrXcWg%2FTskKIQGKmOI%2FAAAAAAAABgQ%2FCkY1WGbvazs%2Fs1600%2Fyawn.png&hash=10803910a8bc5d726467c968646451244f5eaec4)
Quote from: walkstall on September 29, 2016, 10:58:00 AM
WHY not cut the Palestinian loose and allow them to take care of themselves?
Many more voted in the Likud Party.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-rLHpEHrXcWg%2FTskKIQGKmOI%2FAAAAAAAABgQ%2FCkY1WGbvazs%2Fs1600%2Fyawn.png&hash=10803910a8bc5d726467c968646451244f5eaec4)
Which has always been a question of mine.
Charity is a pillar of Islam. The Palestinians have no place to live. So why don't the Islamic countries give the Palestinians a place to live?
I think of it as being like post-Katrina. Many people were displaced. Did we go to Canada and say, You have to give our people someplace to live. No, we absorbed the diplaced into US cities.
Too bad this thread was hijacked to become a ME thread. :thumbdown:
Quote from: supsalemgr on September 29, 2016, 04:22:29 AM
Just dump his ass. It is all a repeat of BS.
SHIT! I forgot to roll out the welcome mat, is it too late.. :lol:
Damn trolls! :cursing:
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 29, 2016, 10:43:23 AM
I never said any of that.
And then you open your face and go on to say....
QuoteI am not critical of Jews or the Jewish religion. ( . . . )
Why not cut Israel loose and allow them to take care of themselves?
You said it, sonny. You claimed you never said it but then you said it: dump Israel.
Dump the troll. :thumbup:
The irony of the whole anti-war movement is that they wouldn't exist if it weren't for the people they're complaining about.
If there wasn't some poor soul risking his life on a battlefield somewhere, there would be no freedom of speech, and hence no anti-war movement.
Quote from: quiller on September 29, 2016, 02:18:31 PM
And then you open your face and go on to say....
You said it, sonny. You claimed you never said it but then you said it: dump Israel.
You said:
Yeah, sonny, evvvvvvvvvvry problem is the Jews, right?This is a cartoonish caricature of something I never said.
I absolutely oppose the so-called "special relationship" the United States government has with Israel. Not because I have any personal animosity towards them, but because I favor non-intervention. I don't think we should have this sort of relationship with any country.
We can be friends with Israelis and trade with them but we shouldn't be sending them a dime in foreign aid. We should allow them to defend themselves without our involvement. We shouldn't tolerate the pressure the Israel Lobby puts on our elected leaders in this country. The way our Congressmen and Senators kowtow to Netanyahu is rather sickening. No foreign leader should exert this much influence over our government.
Personally, I don't approve of the way Netanyahu's hard-line Likud party treats the Palestinian people. In any other context, our government would be denouncing them for human rights violations.
Why not let Israel alone to handle their own problems without our aid or interference? A happy side-effect of this would be that we'd become less likely to be targeted by Muslim terrorists.
Remember the Founders advice to "avoid entangling alliances?"
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 29, 2016, 07:05:31 PM
The irony of the whole anti-war movement is that they wouldn't exist if it weren't for the people they're complaining about.
If there wasn't some poor soul risking his life on a battlefield somewhere, there would be no freedom of speech, and hence no anti-war movement.
No, my freedom of speech is not being protected by the soldiers who fought in the Iraq War. Anti-war activists, at least the ones I associate with, are opposed to
aggressive and avoidable war. We are not opposed to legitimate defensive war. We are not against the maintenance of a military that is sufficiently powerful to protect us from national security threats. But this military should not be deployed around the globe, nor should it be intervening into other nations that haven't attacked us.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 29, 2016, 07:46:44 PM
No, my freedom of speech is not being protected by the soldiers who fought in the Iraq War. Anti-war activists, at least the ones I associate with, are opposed to aggressive and avoidable war. We are not opposed to legitimate defensive war. We are not against the maintenance of a military that is sufficiently powerful to protect us from national security threats. But this military should not be deployed around the globe, nor should it be intervening into other nations that haven't attacked us.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Perhaps its because your talking out both sides of your mouth.
The US is evil for acts of aggression against the Middle East, you say. Yet you refuse to mention the acts of aggression that caused the US' acts of aggression.
As far as Gulf War I goes, the US was requested to intervene by the Saudis and Egypt because Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait, a country that didn't attack him.
Gulf War Two was caused by Saddam being a threat to the word community by amassing weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical weapons.
I know liberals deny there were any chemical weapons, but:
Quote
It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.
Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.
He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. "That doesn't look like pond water," said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.
The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim's airway, skin and eyes.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
Soldiers have been exposed to aging chemical weapons. So tell me, how do you get exposed to something that isn't there?
So what would you have done with Saddam?
I can tell you've never been in the military. Neither have I (I drew a high lottery number back when there was a draft), yet even I know anytime we send troops to fight they're there to fight for our freedoms. Bill, you want to chime in here?
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 29, 2016, 08:23:23 PM
Perhaps its because your talking out both sides of your mouth.
The US is evil for acts of aggression against the Middle East, you say. Yet you refuse to mention the acts of aggression that caused the US' acts of aggression.
As far as Gulf War I goes, the US was requested to intervene by the Saudis and Egypt because Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait, a country that didn't attack him.
Gulf War Two was caused by Saddam being a threat to the word community by amassing weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical weapons.
I know liberals deny there were any chemical weapons, but:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
Soldiers have been exposed to aging chemical weapons. So tell me, how do you get exposed to something that isn't there?
So what would you have done with Saddam?
I can tell you've never been in the military. Neither have I (I drew a high lottery number back when there was a draft), yet even I know anytime we send troops to fight they're there to fight for our freedoms. Bill, you want to chime in here?
I'm pretty much done with this guy, I'm not a big fan of sending our military into every shit pot country in the world to fight terrorism or intervene in their civil wars, so I can understand some of his scphiel. But the whole Gulf war thing just annoys the hell out of me. We could have dealt with Saddam differently to be sure, I think perhaps diplomatically considering that he saved our asses TWICE by selling us oil when the Arabs embargoed Us and Later when Iran did much the same. Perhaps taking his side and offering to represent him in the world court over the supposed reason for invading Kuwait....greater access to the gulf rather than the tiny sliver of land some British Cartographer allotted Iraq back in 1902 or whenever. Then again when he started his military buildup along the border taking the precaution of sending in a large Coalition force to ocuppy and protect Kuwait
BEFORE his tanks crossed the border.
Of course the leftist scream about Human rights over his gassing or the Kurds and his proclivity to develop chemical AND BIOLOGICAL weapons WHICH ARE WORSE THAN NUKES, such weapons falling into hands of terrorists to use against the US was and still is a concern. You have a two fold problem in all the Middle east Unstable Tin Pot Dictators who are rich because of oil and use that oil to develop or arm themselves WEAPONS OF WAR which are likely to be used against their neighbors or against the WEST, particularly against the USA because WE ARE THE STABILIZING FORCE IN THIS WORLD. Second is Fanatic Islamic terrorists who want to establish a Caliphate and bring the world to Islam as is their destiny....by the sword if necessary.
I've been in over 30 countries, including some in the middle east and the fact is a lot of those people plain don't like us, they resent USA and yet they realize the day we withdraw from the Gulf its fkg WW3, Iran, SYria YEMEN, ISIS, SUNII, SHIA, WAHABBI. Take your pick.
However the lesson I learned is that if we want to nullify the influence of these Gulf States AND IRAN, we have to do it by waging war with
economics NOT MILITARY FORCE. The best thing we can do is
develop our own oil AND REFINERIES, undercut OPEC prices thereby taking away their means to finance their weapons agenda and destroy their economy until they are back to living in tents in the desert like they should be.
This is never gonna happen, the leftist enviromental Nazi's will not let it happen because they know it is the REAL means to dominate the world economy and the best solution for our country peace-wise.
Last, the day we stop supporting Israel is the day these other ME Dictators and fanatics turn on it like a bunch of Jackals thereby unleashing WW3. It strikes me odd that every one of these people like Jaroady here is so against nuke's and so pro peace they don;t understand that is the only thing preventing all out war in the ME is Nuclear Armed Israel under the protection of a strong US Military with the commitment to defend that country.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 29, 2016, 07:39:38 PM
You said: Yeah, sonny, evvvvvvvvvvry problem is the Jews, right?
This is a cartoonish caricature of something I never said.
The cartoonist left-wing view of the Holy Lands can only be explained by the general lack of familiarity or respect for the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians alike. You want the Jews undefended. You want us gone and their enemies to win. To suggest ANYTHING else is anti-Semitic and shameful to our long American religious traditions.
You're a joke, boy.
QuoteI absolutely oppose the so-called "special relationship" the United States government has with Israel. Not because I have any personal animosity towards them, but because I favor non-intervention. I don't think we should have this sort of relationship with any country.
Pull your head from yojur sphincter and consider living in a country where religious enemies
BOMB YOU just because, and where paleo-simians send children strapped with bombs. You're in a country where that sort of islamic violence is burgeoning...all because the gutless Democrat in power refused to betray his boyhood religion. That's what non-intervention gets you: an emboldened enemy.
Now go soak your head, troll.
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 29, 2016, 08:23:23 PM
Perhaps its because your talking out both sides of your mouth.
The US is evil for acts of aggression against the Middle East, you say. Yet you refuse to mention the acts of aggression that caused the US' acts of aggression.
As far as Gulf War I goes, the US was requested to intervene by the Saudis and Egypt because Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait, a country that didn't attack him.
Gulf War Two was caused by Saddam being a threat to the word community by amassing weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical weapons.
I know liberals deny there were any chemical weapons, but:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
Soldiers have been exposed to aging chemical weapons. So tell me, how do you get exposed to something that isn't there?
So what would you have done with Saddam?
I can tell you've never been in the military. Neither have I (I drew a high lottery number back when there was a draft), yet even I know anytime we send troops to fight they're there to fight for our freedoms. Bill, you want to chime in here?
I've never been in the military. I made a conscious choice not to join the military because I strongly object to US foreign policy and I would not voluntarily participate in committing evil acts on behalf of the United States government. I would have had to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan and I couldn't in good conscience support such unnecessarily war efforts.
As far as the Iraq War was concerned, I find it hard to believe that you are still finding ways to justify it. Nobody ever denied that Saddam had chemical weapons of some sort at one time. When the United States government supported Saddam and Iraq in their fight against the Iranians in the 1980s, our military knew full well that Saddam had employed chemical weapons in the fight.
From Foreign Policy:
QuoteIn 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2013/08/26/us-supported-iraqs-use-of-chemical-weapons-even-as-it-inches-to-war-with-syria-on-lesser-allegations/
The United States government has no consistent standard against the use of chemical weapons. In fact, the United States has used chemical weapons in it's own wars. What about the use of White Phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq
The arguments put forward in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003 involved insinuations that Iraq had something to do with Al Qaeda and the attacks of 9/11. Sure, they never explicitly said this, but they were very happy to allow people to believe it. Even years later, some 50% of Americans continued to believe there was a link between Saddam and 9/11.
The arguments made against Iraq were that they posed an existential threat to the National Security of the United States, Israel and the rest of the world. Iraq was not actively engaged in war at the time.
I can hardly believe you said "
even I know anytime we send troops to fight they're there to fight for our freedoms".
This is so shockingly naive I don't even know where to begin. In the first place, Americans have traditionally been deprived of their freedoms during wartime. There is a lot of corporate profits to be made by engaging in war, and military contractors make a killing during wartime. They lobby for more conflict, even when our national security is not threatened.
Finally, I want to respond to your statement:
The US is evil for acts of aggression against the Middle East, you say. Yet you refuse to mention the acts of aggression that caused the US' acts of aggression.I'm against aggression in any form. But according to our best estimates, our military has killed vastly more middle eastern Muslims than they have killed Americans. I think the ratio is between 30:1 and 100:1
So the total amount of aggression on either side is not equal. Any time there is a conflict that has lasted decades, either side is able to point out a particular attack that the other side perpetrated to justify their continuing aggression. Our military will continually remind us of 9/11 and various isolated mass-shootings to justify their continued intervention into the middle east. Islamic terrorists will continue to point to Muslim deaths in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan due to US military attacks and drone strikes to justify their violence against us.
We can and should respond to terrorist attacks committed against us. But we need to narrowly target those directly responsible for the attacks. We should be bringing those people to justice while leaving the rest of the Muslim world alone.
We got Osama bin Laden. We've imprisoned or killed pretty much every home-grown terrorist in the past decade.
What I don't want our military to do is to initiate drone strikes against middle eastern nations. I don't want us occupying middle eastern nations, or subsidizing puppet governments. I don't want us interfering in the elections of other countries.
We can adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy and still respond to individual terrorist attacks. Bringing to justice those who committed violence is not aggression, it is defense. Terrorist attacks are simply criminal actions and should be treated as such.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 30, 2016, 08:54:01 AM
As far as the Iraq War was concerned, I find it hard to believe that you are still finding ways to justify it. Nobody ever denied that Saddam had chemical weapons of some sort at one time. When the United States government supported Saddam and Iraq in their fight against the Iranians in the 1980s, our military knew full well that Saddam had employed chemical weapons in the fight.
You mean like the effort you put forth to justify those that are committing acts on the US?
If we're to buy your argument that their acts of aggression were because of our acts of aggression, what do you think their acts of aggression will do? That's right, create more acts of aggression against them.
Common sense tells you if you don't want an altercation, walk away. Certainly, don't escalate the conflict and then whine and cry they hit you back.
So the niave person calls me niave. Your the one trying to justify acts of aggression on your country. Your the one that refuses to see their acts of aggression caused our acts of agression.
Oh, Gulf War Two wasn't just about chemical weapons. (Which I would add, using your logic, [as stated in their agression is caused by our agression] so we used chemical weapons, that doesn't give them the right to use chemical weapons [just as its wrong for us to be aggressive because they're aggressive]). There was also an act of aggression against a President
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
Your against aggression in any form? So you have no home or family to defend?
I used to be a pacifist long ago, then I woke up and realized there are things worth fighting for and forces that are more than willing to take those things away if your not willing to fight for them.
Thomas Jefferson said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." Ever wonder why? Because there's always somebody willing to take away your freedom if your not willing to fight for it.
Dude, maybe at one time businesses made money in time of war, but not anymore. Not when most of the manufacturing is in China. The only one who makes money in time of war is China.
Loss of freedoms during time of war. Really, then how do we have people protesting Viet Nam, Iraq, and presently you posting your posts? Seems to me you have your freedom of speech, as they did. So what freedoms are lost during war?
Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 30, 2016, 10:03:21 AM
You mean like the effort you put forth to justify those that are committing acts on the US?
If we're to buy your argument that their acts of aggression were because of our acts of aggression, what do you think their acts of aggression will do? That's right, create more acts of aggression against them.
Common sense tells you if you don't want an altercation, walk away. Certainly, don't escalate the conflict and then whine and cry they hit you back.
So the niave person calls me niave. Your the one trying to justify acts of aggression on your country. Your the one that refuses to see their acts of aggression caused our acts of agression.
Oh, Gulf War Two wasn't just about chemical weapons. (Which I would add, using your logic, [as stated in their agression is caused by our agression] so we used chemical weapons, that doesn't give them the right to use chemical weapons [just as its wrong for us to be aggressive because they're aggressive]). There was also an act of aggression against a President
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
Your against aggression in any form? So you have no home or family to defend?
I used to be a pacifist long ago, then I woke up and realized there are things worth fighting for and forces that are more than willing to take those things away if your not willing to fight for them.
Thomas Jefferson said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." Ever wonder why? Because there's always somebody willing to take away your freedom if your not willing to fight for it.
Dude, maybe at one time businesses made money in time of war, but not anymore. Not when most of the manufacturing is in China. The only one who makes money in time of war is China.
Loss of freedoms during time of war. Really, then how do we have people protesting Viet Nam, Iraq, and presently you posting your posts? Seems to me you have your freedom of speech, as they did. So what freedoms are lost during war?
Damn, I hardly know where to start. Let's start at the end. What freedoms have we lost during the so-called "War on Terror"? Let's start with the Patriot Act, which granted the government vast powers to undermine American civil liberties.
QuoteProf. Gary Orfield of the UCLA Civil Rights Project wrote in May 2003: "The loss of civil rights often begins with the reduction of rights in a time of crisis, for a minority that has become the scapegoat for a problem facing the nation. The situation can become particularly explosive in a time of national tragedy or war. But when civil rights for one group of Americans are threatened and the disappearance of those rights is accepted, it becomes a potential threat to many others." [1]
Prof. Orfield wrote this while commenting on the plight of Arabs and Muslims who were the immediate target of Patriot Act provisions and other legislations in the aftermath of 9/11. However his prediction proved correct about the erosion of civil rights of all citizens. In the last ten years we have seen a steady erosion of the fundamental rights and civil liberties, all in the name of national security.
The gradual erosion of our civil liberties came in the shape of Warrantless Wiretapping, abuse of the USA PATRIOT Act, the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS), the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act, No Fly and Selectee Lists, Abuse of Material Witness Statute, Attacks on Academic Freedom and monitoring peaceful groups.
The so-called War on Terror has seriously compromised the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. From the USA PATRIOT Act's over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI's new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, the principles of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law have been seriously undermined.
As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, the most disgraceful episodes in American history have been about exempting classes of Americans from core rights, and that is exactly what these recent, terrorism-justified proposals do as well. Anyone who believes that these sorts of abusive powers will be exercised only in narrow and magnanimous ways should just read a little bit of history, or just look at what has happened with the always-expanding police powers vested in the name of the never-ending War on Drugs, the precursor to the never-ending War on Terrorism in so many ways.
http://www.civilfreedoms.org?p=7260
Furthermore, consider the revelations revealed to us by whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden, Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning. We've created a massive new federal department in the Department of Homeland Security, and the NSA has decimated the Fourth Amendment through it's bulk data collection. We've imprisoned American citizens without trial and executed American citizens without judicial oversight.
The link above goes through most of it, but the list of liberties lost since 9/11 is a long one. The reason our government was able to abridge these liberties is that they capitalized on the fear Americans felt and used war-time conditions to their advantage.
The growth of government is facilitated most during times of crisis, and the greatest crisis that government can engage in is war. Robert Higgs wrote about this in his book "Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government".
Moving on, I don't think you understand what the word "aggression" means. Aggression is defined as
initiatory violence. I am not a pacifist and I will use violence to defend myself, my family and my property from criminals. Similarly, I support our military using violence in defense of this country. I expect them to repel an invading army, for example.
My problem is that our military has been engaging in
aggression rather than defense. After 9/11, we had the just right to go and get Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We had the moral obligation to do everything within our power to avoid collateral damage, avoid disrupting and harming Arab citizens who hadn't committed aggression against us.
Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people had not attacked the United States and posed no national security threat. They had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. Therefore, our military had no business attacking and occupying that country.
Similarly with Afghanistan, our special forces may have had justification to pass through that country in it's efforts to hunt down Bin Laden and Mohammed, but they had no justification for an extended occupation of that country to fight against the Taliban.
Once again, I am forced to repeat that I am not justifying terrorist attacks. The anger that motivates most Islamic terrorists is justified, but the targeting of civilians is not justified. If we remove the incentive, then we would be less at risk because there would be less anger and resentment towards the United States from the Muslim people. Less resentment and anger, less terrorist recruits, and less attacks.
Robert Pape documented this extensively. When a foreign occupying nation withdraws it's troops, terrorist attacks from the occupied nation against the occupying nation are drastically reduced or eliminated entirely.
By the way, the supposed "plot to kill President Bush" is not an act of aggression. It serves as a pie-in-the-sky dream of a people that had absolutely no ability to carry out such an attack. Aggression is a tangible action, not a plot to commit a future action.
This speculated plot absolutely does NOT justify the first Gulf War. Every President faces death threats from his political enemies. Secret Service investigates them all, but hardly anybody ever has had the means to carry through with an assassination.
When Thomas Jefferson said "Eternal Vigilance is the price of freedom" he was thinking about our OWN government, rather than a foreign threat. Do you think Thomas Jefferson would have supported the Iraq War or the first Gulf War?
Jefferson would have been more concerned, as am I, about the United States Federal Government depriving us of our liberties by exaggerating the threat of a foreign enemy.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 30, 2016, 05:13:53 PM
Moving on, I don't think you understand what the word "aggression" means. Aggression is defined as initiatory violence. I am not a pacifist and I will use violence to defend myself, my family and my property from criminals. Similarly, I support our military using violence in defense of this country. I expect them to repel an invading army, for example.
My problem is that our military has been engaging in aggression rather than defense.
I think you don't understand the nature of euphemism. Nor do you understand the nature of strategy. One of the rules of strategy is that the side always on defense loses. Doubt me? Watch any football or basketball game, you can predict the loser by who's on defense most. So your military for defense is a loser strategy.
The way to win is to go on offense, become pro-active, not reactive.
Quote
After 9/11, we had the just right to go and get Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We had the moral obligation to do everything within our power to avoid collateral damage, avoid disrupting and harming Arab citizens who hadn't committed aggression against us.
And in a perfect world that's what would have happened. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. Anytime there's war, there's collateral damage. We've manage to minimize is considerable, but as I said, nothing is perfect---and therefore not 100%. Would you prefer it be like World War II where whole cities, like Dresden, were bombed into oblivian?
Quote
Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people had not attacked the United States and posed no national security threat. They had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. Therefore, our military had no business attacking and occupying that country.
You apparently didn't read the article in the Washington Post link, did you? That's not a threat to national security? He did it once, he'd try again.
Quote
Similarly with Afghanistan, our special forces may have had justification to pass through that country in it's efforts to hunt down Bin Laden and Mohammed, but they had no justification for an extended occupation of that country to fight against the Taliban.
Pass through the country? They were harboring him, giving him sanctuary. How old are you? I'd say you were in your 20s, maybe 30s. You sure weren't old enough to understand what really happened when it happened. All you have is a false narrative some history revisionist gave you.
Quote
By the way, the supposed "plot to kill President Bush" is not an act of aggression. It serves as a pie-in-the-sky dream of a people that had absolutely no ability to carry out such an attack. Aggression is a tangible action, not a plot to commit a future action.
This speculated plot absolutely does NOT justify the first Gulf War. Every President faces death threats from his political enemies. Secret Service investigates them all, but hardly anybody ever has had the means to carry through with an assassination.
Your bias is showing. I thought you went by emperical facts. Actually, you only go by fact that support your point of view.
Oh they were idealist, so they don't count, you say.
Their anger is justifed, you say. Yet you chide the US for its anger for what's been done to it.
Obviously your point of view is everybody has an excuse except for the United States.
Quote
When Thomas Jefferson said "Eternal Vigilance is the price of freedom" he was thinking about our OWN government, rather than a foreign threat. Do you think Thomas Jefferson would have supported the Iraq War or the first Gulf War?
Jefferson would have been more concerned, as am I, about the United States Federal Government depriving us of our liberties by exaggerating the threat of a foreign enemy.
And naturally the communist don't want to take away our liberties, right? So then the statement holds for external threats to liberty too, doesn't it?
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 30, 2016, 08:54:01 AM
I've never been in the military. I made a conscious choice not to join the military because I strongly object to US foreign policy and I would not voluntarily participate in committing evil acts on behalf of the United States government. I would have had to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan and I couldn't in good conscience support such unnecessarily war efforts.
Good conscience, :lol: I say the only thing you were doing was protection your own ASS from this.
(https://palestinewarcrimes.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/btwnmuwcyaakc7y-medium.jpg)
Quote from: walkstall on September 30, 2016, 07:03:18 PM
Good conscience, :lol: I say the only thing you were doing was protection your own ASS from this.
The leftist cowardice is strong in this one. Too gutless to serve, too brainless to lead.
Quote from: jrodefeld on September 30, 2016, 08:54:01 AM
I've never been in the military.
As far as the Iraq War was concerned, I find it hard to believe that you are still finding ways to justify it. Nobody ever denied that Saddam had chemical weapons of some sort at one time.
The arguments made against Iraq were that they posed an existential threat to the National Security of the United States, Israel and the rest of the world. Iraq was not actively engaged in war at the time.
I'm against aggression in any form. But according to our best estimates, our military has killed vastly more middle eastern Muslims than they have killed Americans. I think the ratio is between 30:1 and 100:1
So the total amount of aggression on either side is not equal.
We can and should respond to terrorist attacks committed against us. But we need to narrowly target those directly responsible for the attacks. We should be bringing those people to justice while leaving the rest of the Muslim world alone.We got Osama bin Laden. We've imprisoned or killed pretty much every home-grown terrorist in the past decade.
What I don't want our military to do is to initiate drone strikes against middle eastern nations. I don't want us occupying middle eastern nations, or subsidizing puppet governments. I don't want us interfering in the elections of other countries.
We can adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy and still respond to individual terrorist attacks. Bringing to justice those who committed violence is not aggression, it is defense. Terrorist attacks are simply criminal actions and should be treated as such.
I really can't believe how your mind works, is this what passes for intelligent foresight nowadays?
NO WONDER THE ENEMY IS WINNING....AND THEY ARE. I get more into this later but your last statement really shows your ignorance. Terror attacks are NOT criminal acts THEY ARE A FORM OF WARFARE, everything they do from introducing counterfeit $100 bill s into our economy to raising the price of oil per barrel is an act of aggression.
But, Lets begin with the Iraq war....one and two. As I previously pointed out, we could have handled Saddam differently and prevented the first gulf war by fortifying Kuwait against invasion and perhaps supported Saddam's claim about a territorial dispute....BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO it was people like you who encouraged a non interventionist policy or a non military solution
believing that if you just let things alone they'll work out fine. It didn't, Saddam invaded Kuwait triggering a response from an outraged world and you know the rest.
LESSON LEARNED....
.doing nothing is a sure way to make things worse. I point to CLinton's inaction over Bin Laudin and place it in the same catagory.
As I have also pointed out previously the very worst thing the US could have done was choosing NOT to take out Saddam after we beat his army. We made an enemy FOR LIFE, if it took a thousand years Saddam's X to the power Grandchildren would be an inherited enemy of the USA, just as Salahudin and the western CRUSADERS a millenium ago.
That is how those people think. And you, me, the US Army and The Pope with all the Saints in Heaven can't change it.
We would have had to fight Saddam sooner or later, so stratigically, what is the best way to fight him WHEN HE HAS DEVELOPED NUCLEAR , CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS or BEFORE he has perfected or obtained such weapons?
Your main problem, like
most American's is that you believe the rest of the world thinks like you do and uses the same logic, I ASSURE YOU THEY DON'T. You speak with an enlightened education based on freedom of information you can access daily in a newspaper, the internet or a TV program and make your own conclusions. Most people in the 3rd world can't afford a newspaper,don't have a TV and some barely have an education, what education they do have is state sponsored and more like propaganda or is approved by some Freak in a Kufi hat and a black robe quoting the Q-uan.
And when these loons fill people with the hate, MISINFORMATION and rancor against the West in General and the US in particular what sort of human product do you think they develop?
I particularly find your statement about the ratio's of Muslim's killed to Americans killed to be almost childlike in its naivety.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A WAR, when you start a fight with the Americans, they kill you in the tens of thousands. So don't start any shit with them.....That would be the logical choice, but these people DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMAN LIFE. only when it suits their propaganda, then they love to show children and pregnant women killed by a supposed drone strike. Never mind the fact they themselves kill women and children by the score if it suits their purpose and often with gun buts, clubs, knives, swords or even by stoning to death to save bullets.
Case in point, okay the Americans killed 30 Muslims to one, sure, fine, how many of those Muslims were suicide bombers with "magic belts" that killed themselves and maybe took out a few innocents along with the American soldiers it was intended to? You understand what I'm saying,
Dead women and children are all part of their plan, because they KNOW HOW AMERICANS think.....OH, THAT'S TERRIBLE, WE HAVE TO STOP THIS AND END THE AGGRESSION AGAINST THESE POOR PEOPLE. We're killing 100 of them for every American killed....oh my oh my. In the mean time they are training some 8 year old how to strap on a suicide vest.
That is why I said in previous posts you are buying into the enemies propaganda by believing their lies and their BS and while you may not support terrorism per se you inadvertantly support the position they want you and other American to have. This is a very sophisticated form of psychological warfare they use. Remember part of the strategy of this type of warfare (terrorism/Guerilla warfare) is to use not only the ENEMIES WEAKNESSES BUT ALSO HIS STRENGTH against him. YOU ARE BEING CONDITIONED BY THE ENEMY TO THINK THIS WAY.
While you and I see the Constitution as OUR STRENGTH, they exploit it as a weakness, they particularly use the first amendt, perhaps our greatest strength, to be exploited and spread their propaganda, lies and misdirection. Just look at Al Jazeera, now accessible on cable TV to every American household....what utter fools we are!
Now the last thing I wish to school you on is your ignorance on matters military. In previous posts I think we both agreed that special forces units, backed by the latest technological systems INCLUDING DRONES was the best way to address terrorism and fight battle in the future Vs large conventional armies occupying territory.
Now look at the contradictions you are putting forth, You don't want any intervention in the ME, you don;t want US troops occupying countries, you don;t want US Bases around the world YET YOU WANT ATTACKS AND STRIKES AGAINST TERRORISTS AS INDIVIDUALS when warranted.
How prey tale, would you have the US strike at terror orgs deeply ensconced in some middle east country if not with a drone strike on a high flying stealth bomber using laser guided technology? Would you land boots on the ground to be chopped up in enemy territory causing or loss of life to American soldiers....how stupid and callous. And if ground operations are the case such troops must have bases from which to respond from. They must have ships and transport systems capable of delivering them and their supplemental equipment and communications and gear. At present, the most efficient form of response are dependant on seaborn and aerial transport from strategically located bases. And the drone program is largely run out of Edwards airforce base in California. I see the day when drone will not be large volkswagen beetle sized explosive missles but rather something like a mechanical bird programed to seek out a certain individual terrorist through facial recognition and deliver a 22 magnum hollow point to his fucking left eyeball. But such technology will cost billions in research and development
.......which brings us back to the original arguement about DOWNSIZING the military. You can't predict the cost of such increasing technology therefore you can't slash military budgets as you wish.
Technological weapons are our greatest asset to date.
Quote from: quiller on October 01, 2016, 02:47:17 AM
The leftist cowardice is strong in this one. Too gutless to serve, too brainless to lead.
Choosing not to join the military because I didn't want to support the War in Iraq constitutes "cowardice" to you? If I joined the military when I was 18 or 19, I would have been deployed to Iraq.
Anyone who doesn't willingly offer themselves up as cannon-fodder in the Regime's senseless wars of aggression is a coward according to you.
Suppose we didn't have a draft at the height of the Vietnam War. Would you have voluntarily enlisted (assuming you were military age at the time) knowing that you'd be deployed in Vietnam?
If you say yes, then you're a damned fool. Worse than that, your enlisting in the US military constitutes an endorsement of an evil policy. If US soldiers refuse to comply with immoral orders, then US foreign policy would HAVE to change.
Military-worship absolutely sickens me. If the United States ever faced a genuine national security threat, I'd be the first one volunteering to defend my family, my neighbors and my property. But I will never willingly participate in acts of aggression, nor will I be a pawn for in insane military establishment that seeks world empire.
As older folks, ya'll should think long and hard about the sort of wars you want my generation and the generation after me to fight in. You won't go fight, you'd rather send me and my friends to go die in your insane wars. I don't agree with these wars, so I won't go and participate in them.
I have given jrodefeld timeout for 6 days. I hope it will give him time for thinking about all his freedom he has, that other has given their lives for. Free Speech Comes With A Price. If you don't protect it you can and will lose it.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 01, 2016, 12:52:37 PM
As older folks, ya'll should think long and hard about the sort of wars you want my generation and the generation after me to fight in. You won't go fight, you'd rather send me and my friends to go die in your insane wars. I don't agree with these wars, so I won't go and participate in them.
I am not going to be PC. :biggrin:
You dumb ass, I would go again but they will not take me at my age. You just sit in your mothers basement and stay safe until they come for you with a Machete.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 01, 2016, 12:52:37 PM
Choosing not to join the military because I didn't want to support the War in Iraq constitutes "cowardice" to you? If I joined the military when I was 18 or 19, I would have been deployed to Iraq.
And your point, lying puke? I volunteered for the military during Vietnam. And your running away ennobles you
HOW to people who love this country and want it properly defended?
QuoteAnyone who doesn't willingly offer themselves up as cannon-fodder in the Regime's senseless wars of aggression is a coward according to you.
Lookin' right atcha, gutless one.
QuoteSuppose we didn't have a draft at the height of the Vietnam War. Would you have voluntarily enlisted (assuming you were military age at the time) knowing that you'd be deployed in Vietnam?
We did have a draft. I ignored it and joined anyway.
[/s]
If you say yes, then you're a damned fool. [/quote]
Yeah, puke, don't EVER contribute, just be a parasite lying piece of shit. It suits you.
QuoteWorse than that, your enlisting in the US military constitutes an endorsement of an evil policy. If US soldiers refuse to comply with immoral orders, then US foreign policy would HAVE to change.
Write Hillary. It's her foreign policy.
QuoteMilitary-worship absolutely sickens me. If the United States ever faced a genuine national security threat, I'd be the first one volunteering to defend my family, my neighbors and my property.
A bullshit lie from start to finish, based on your yellow belly remarks here.
QuoteBut I will never willingly participate in acts of aggression, nor will I be a pawn for in insane military establishment that seeks world empire.
If they won't let you kiss them into a peace treaty, then what do you do, Cupcake? Are you THAT stupid to think we can simply negotiate peace?
QuoteAs older folks, ya'll should think long and hard about the sort of wars you want my generation and the generation after me to fight in. You won't go fight, you'd rather send me and my friends to go die in your insane wars. I don't agree with these wars, so I won't go and participate in them.
Leave it to EVERYONE ELSE to keep your gutless self free. I
did go fight, clown. (1967-1973.) I willingly participated in the Vietnam war, and extended my service to 6 years because of the opportunities military service gave me.
Quote from: walkstall on October 01, 2016, 02:15:14 PM
I am not going to be PC. :biggrin:
You dumb ass, I would go again but they will not take me at my age. You just sit in your mothers basement and stay safe until they come for you with a Machete.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crwdqbgbssrwbqsqxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fbsdqbskwrxsdwdgdsgw%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fther_military_genius_checks_in-vi.png&hash=f7f307144bb47af4dbe9069eebc0e4add9186f61)
Quote from: thumper on October 01, 2016, 01:58:36 PM
I have given jrodefeld timeout for 6 days. I hope it will give him time for thinking about all his freedom he has, that other has given their lives for. Free Speech Comes With A Price. If you don't protect it you can and will lose it.
Belatedly saw this, saving me another epic rant threatening the site's reputation and all probable sense of proportion. Maybe.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 01, 2016, 12:52:37 PM
Choosing not to join the military because I didn't want to support the War in Iraq constitutes "cowardice" to you? If I joined the military when I was 18 or 19, I would have been deployed to Iraq.
Anyone who doesn't willingly offer themselves up as cannon-fodder in the Regime's senseless wars of aggression is a coward according to you.
Suppose we didn't have a draft at the height of the Vietnam War. Would you have voluntarily enlisted (assuming you were military age at the time) knowing that you'd be deployed in Vietnam?
If you say yes, then you're a damned fool. Worse than that, your enlisting in the US military constitutes an endorsement of an evil policy. If US soldiers refuse to comply with immoral orders, then US foreign policy would HAVE to change.
Military-worship absolutely sickens me. If the United States ever faced a genuine national security threat, I'd be the first one volunteering to defend my family, my neighbors and my property. But I will never willingly participate in acts of aggression, nor will I be a pawn for in insane military establishment that seeks world empire.
As older folks, ya'll should think long and hard about the sort of wars you want my generation and the generation after me to fight in. You won't go fight, you'd rather send me and my friends to go die in your insane wars. I don't agree with these wars, so I won't go and participate in them.
I got drafted, I felt I had an OBLIGATION to serve my country in the military not necessarily go fight Vietnamese but do what my country asked of me, be that stationed at a cushy stateside base or wading through elephant grass looking for enemy tunnels. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on ones point of view, I ended up doing the later and I will tell you, IT DEVELOPED ME AND MADE ME A BETTER PERSON, I PROVED MY METTLE. Just like it did a lot of other 18 Year old JERKS, you see in my day, if you were Juvenile delinquent and got brought before a judge they would tell you, you got a choice, Go to jail or join the ________ Insert Branch of service. Military service turned some many of those young men around.
And yeah, if I had not been drafted I would have probably joined. Like my Older Brother who was some kind of electronic geek in the Air Force. STATIONED IN IRAN (surprise!) My military service DEFINED ME, otherwise I would have been just some 18 Y/O kid with no money for college education, no job or doing some mundane task that would have bored the hell out of me.
I bless ever day I served in the military even though some of those days were pure hell. Because THAT WHICH WE SURVIVE ONLY MAKES US STRONGER. without it I doubt I would have achieved much because in my shitty little Pa Steel town not long after that the mills began to close and the railroads stopped and all my high school buddies who stayed behind were out of work, laid off, losing their cars, their homes and in some cases their marriages.
And in my day, the early 70's, if you didn't have Military service you were shit, nobody wanted to hire you because all the people who owned the companies were WW2 Vets or Korean War Vets or in some cases had Served in 'Nam' You were part of the club, you proved yourself and here you were with an Honorable discharge and maybe even a few medals on your DD 214. (Discharge papers).
Don't you dare belittle those men or those of us who served and call us fools and dupes, because EVERY VET I ever met has something you probably lack....that's CHARACTER. What I see of your generation by and large is A LACK OF CHARACTER, you can't commit to anything, and nothing is of any value to you other than your gadgets and your insane social media. So don't tell us this bullshit about how your going to be standing on the front lines defending this country or your neighborhood or your home when then heathen hordes come. You don't have the commitment or the discipline when it comes to such as that.
And in short, most of us Old Bastards here would probably agree that we wouldn't want you around anyhow, you wouldn't listen to us and we wouldn't trust you.
QuoteAnd in short, most of us Old Bastards here would probably agree that we wouldn't want you around anyhow, you wouldn't listen to us and we wouldn't trust you.
Candidate for friendly fire. Freaking coward. :cursing:
Quote from: quiller on October 01, 2016, 04:31:39 PM
Belatedly saw this, saving me another epic rant threatening the site's reputation and all probable sense of proportion. Maybe.
I thought I'd give his post a test and check to see what the testosterone level was regarding content.
No, I was not surprised in the least.
Genre: Formal
Female = 568
Male = 554
Difference = -14; 49.37%
Verdict: Weak FEMALEhttp://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze
Johnson comes off as an SNL sketch. Played by Dana Carvey.
Quote from: Solar on October 01, 2016, 07:04:55 PM
I thought I'd give his post a test and check to see what the testosterone level was regarding content.
No, I was not surprised in the least.
Genre: Formal
Female = 568
Male = 554
Difference = -14; 49.37%
Verdict: Weak FEMALE
http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze
Any bets he carries one in his purse?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csbbdfwdwwqrrkggxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frgkswtgtrxbsdqbskwr%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fould_possibly_need_that_640_18-vi.jpg&hash=1793684e0dbb95717e3bb31ab9ceacc2373f1070)
Quote from: quiller on October 02, 2016, 02:33:02 AM
Any bets he carries one in his purse?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csbbdfwdwwqrrkggxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frgkswtgtrxbsdqbskwr%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fould_possibly_need_that_640_18-vi.jpg&hash=1793684e0dbb95717e3bb31ab9ceacc2373f1070)
Your pic doesn't load.
The media.fotki.com page isn't working
media.fotki.com didn't send any data.
ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE
Quote from: Solar on October 02, 2016, 04:08:28 PM
Your pic doesn't load.
The media.fotki.com page isn't working
media.fotki.com didn't send any data.
ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE
LOL it was working yesterday.
Quote from: walkstall on October 02, 2016, 04:11:53 PM
LOL it was working yesterday.
I can still see my avatar and footer image, which come from the same site. The site itself doesn't respond to two different browsers.
Quote from: quiller on October 03, 2016, 03:25:16 AM
I can still see my avatar and footer image, which come from the same site. The site itself doesn't respond to two different browsers.
Right now all I see in your footer image is a black box with a black X.
Quote from: walkstall on October 03, 2016, 03:44:11 AM
Right now all I see in your footer image is a black box with a black X.
I see both avatar and footer. Why this happens to me every election year is simply beyond me.....
Do the names Frank Gaffney and Bridgett Gabriel mean anything to you? These two individuals are influential members of the Anti-Islam Lobby in the United States. Their covert propaganda has been filtered through various Right-Wing news outlets and through ostensibly Christian religious organizations.
Your support for the "War on Terror" and insistence that we are fighting a war against "radical Islam" is troubling because I fear you might have allowed yourselves to be swayed by misinformation campaigns perpetrated by groups that do not have your best interest at heart.
The journalist David Noriega wrote a great article recently called "Meet the Charming, Terrifying Face of the the Anti-Islam Lobby":
https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidnoriega/meet-the-charming-terrifying-face-of-the-anti-islam-lobby?utm_term=.brwQLRp2eg#.xnEEW13b5q
In fact, Noriega was interviewed on one of my favorite radio programs and podcasts, The Scott Horton Show:
http://scotthorton.org/interviews/93016-david-noriega-2/
I really encourage you to listen to this interview. You owe it to yourself to at least have a good idea of what type of people are behind promoting the ideas you are parroting.
When I was gone, it was quite comical to read that some of you think I'm not sufficiently a "man" or I've got low testosterone simply because I'm against aggressive war. By that logic, we ought to chastise all men who oppose rape and murder for being girly-men, not sufficiently masculine.
I understand that there are people who have gotten something positive from their time in the military. There's no question that the military can instill positive values, discipline and things of that nature. But people can get these values outside of the military as well.
My main concern is about what the military is asking our soldiers to do to other people in other countries. For those of you who served in Vietnam, you may feel like your time in the military helped you in some way. But this "personal development" occurred at the expense of innocent Vietnamese who were murdered by the thousands.
I am not blaming people who participated in unjust wars if there was a draft and you really didn't have a choice. But you shouldn't praise your "service" or pretend that what you were doing in the waging of an unjust war is morally defensible. At best, you were a victim of temporary enslavement, forced to do the government's killing.
I have to say that I admire the stand of Muhammad Ali, who refused on principle to fight in an unjust war. He sacrificed a lot to take this stand, losing five years of his athletic prime when he was prohibited from boxing. I don't expect everyone to have the courage to take a stand like this, but if more soldiers refused to comply with immoral orders, we could have averted untold numbers of war crimes and brought many unjust wars to an earlier end.
I've made this point before, but you seem to have ignored it thus far so it bears repeating. You cannot be a supporter of limited, Constitutional government and be a supporter of military empire and a Defense budget of $700 Billion a year. The growth of government has been the greatest under conditions of war. Randolph Borne said "war is the health of the State". If you continue to support these wars and offer unconditional and uncritical support for our military, then the government will continue to grow, the national debt will skyrocket, our liberties will be taken from us and eventually we'll be living under martial law and a Totalitarian State, unless we are all destroyed in a Nuclear War.
Murray Rothbard said that the issue of war and peace is at the heart of libertarianism. Proponents of small government, whether they be libertarians or constitutional conservatives, must be anti-war or else they are complete frauds.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 07, 2016, 06:52:28 PM
Do the names Frank Gaffney and Bridgett Gabriel mean anything to you? These two individuals are influential members of the Anti-Islam Lobby in the United States. Their covert propaganda has been filtered through various Right-Wing news outlets and through ostensibly Christian religious organizations.
Your support for the "War on Terror" and insistence that we are fighting a war against "radical Islam" is troubling because I fear you might have allowed yourselves to be swayed by misinformation campaigns perpetrated by groups that do not have your best interest at heart.
The journalist David Noriega wrote a great article recently called "Meet the Charming, Terrifying Face of the the Anti-Islam Lobby":
https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidnoriega/meet-the-charming-terrifying-face-of-the-anti-islam-lobby?utm_term=.brwQLRp2eg#.xnEEW13b5q
In fact, Noriega was interviewed on one of my favorite radio programs and podcasts, The Scott Horton Show:
http://scotthorton.org/interviews/93016-david-noriega-2/
I really encourage you to listen to this interview. You owe it to yourself to at least have a good idea of what type of people are behind promoting the ideas you are parroting.
When I was gone, it was quite comical to read that some of you think I'm not sufficiently a "man" or I've got low testosterone simply because I'm against aggressive war. By that logic, we ought to chastise all men who oppose rape and murder for being girly-men, not sufficiently masculine.
I understand that there are people who have gotten something positive from their time in the military. There's no question that the military can instill positive values, discipline and things of that nature. But people can get these values outside of the military as well.
My main concern is about what the military is asking our soldiers to do to other people in other countries. For those of you who served in Vietnam, you may feel like your time in the military helped you in some way. But this "personal development" occurred at the expense of innocent Vietnamese who were murdered by the thousands.
I am not blaming people who participated in unjust wars if there was a draft and you really didn't have a choice. But you shouldn't praise your "service" or pretend that what you were doing in the waging of an unjust war is morally defensible. At best, you were a victim of temporary enslavement, forced to do the government's killing.
I have to say that I admire the stand of Muhammad Ali, who refused on principle to fight in an unjust war. He sacrificed a lot to take this stand, losing five years of his athletic prime when he was prohibited from boxing. I don't expect everyone to have the courage to take a stand like this, but if more soldiers refused to comply with immoral orders, we could have averted untold numbers of war crimes and brought many unjust wars to an earlier end.
I've made this point before, but you seem to have ignored it thus far so it bears repeating. You cannot be a supporter of limited, Constitutional government and be a supporter of military empire and a Defense budget of $700 Billion a year. The growth of government has been the greatest under conditions of war. Randolph Borne said "war is the health of the State". If you continue to support these wars and offer unconditional and uncritical support for our military, then the government will continue to grow, the national debt will skyrocket, our liberties will be taken from us and eventually we'll be living under martial law and a Totalitarian State, unless we are all destroyed in a Nuclear War.
Murray Rothbard said that the issue of war and peace is at the heart of libertarianism. Proponents of small government, whether they be libertarians or constitutional conservatives, must be anti-war or else they are complete frauds.
Back after your Sabbatical I see and spewing a fresh load of horse manure.
So Now Islamic Terrorism is a figment of our imagination cooked up by these Boris and Natasha like characters who have the powers of evil comic book super villains using some sort of mind control machine I suppose. So says your new idol some guy named Noriega.
Listen up real good.
THE TERRORISTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TERRORISM, THUS,
THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR ON TERROR. THEY are responsible for the steps the Govt must take to counter them. Every time you get your cojones groped at the airport, you can thank an Islamic Terrorist because they make it necessary to take such steps.
And stop making a fool of yourself over the Vietnam war, there was another case in which VIETNAMESE, killed more VIETNAMESE than AMERICAN BOMBS EVER DID....just like I told you is the case with Islamic terrorism. Once the American forces left, there was a bloody slaughter and a purge....ever heard of "boat People"? What do you think they were running from? The spill over of that war into Cambodia saw one of the worst genocides since WW2 the killing of perhaps 3 million
Khmers by other
Khmers, rather proves my point....AGAIN. It also proves that the "Domino theory" which was one of the basis for the Southeast Asian War is also true. GO BACK AND RE READ THAT....cause the Domino theory is Alive and well today with Radical Islam.
Now I got a question for you.
If these mad dogs will do that to THEIR OWN PEOPLE, what do you think they will do to you as an American?Now since you pulled Murray Rothbard out of your hat with "a person can't be a conservative blah blah blah"....here is something to chew on.....NATIONAL DEFENSE is one of the enumerated powers of Govt in the Constitution, roll it up & shove it up Murry's puckered asshole and light it on fire.
Every time some gutless punk too scared to volunteer for national service even DARES to tell me what Vietnam was all about, I get 100% amused.
This puke wasn't even alive then. This lying little fraud too scared to serve the very country ALLOWING him these rights he claims....?
He's trash. And from now on, he is mine. All mine, with the big red Q branded on his worthless and ignorant ass.
QuoteI've made this point before, but you seem to have ignored it thus far
I have said it before. When you post this much BS at a time, very few or no one at all will read it. We are a TEA Conservative Political Forum. Therefore your wasting your time. But that's just my way of thinking.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on October 07, 2016, 07:41:03 PM
Back after your Sabbatical I see and spewing a fresh load of horse manure.
:thumbup:
Quote
And stop making a fool of yourself over the Vietnam war, there was another case in which VIETNAMESE, killed more VIETNAMESE than AMERICAN BOMBS EVER DID....just like I told you is the case with Islamic terrorism. Once the American forces left, there was a bloody slaughter and a purge....ever heard of "boat People"? What do you think they were running from? The spill over of that war into Cambodia saw one of the worst genocides since WW2 the killing of perhaps 3 million Khmers by other Khmers, rather proves my point....AGAIN. It also proves that the "Domino theory" which was one of the basis for the Southeast Asian War is also true. GO BACK AND RE READ THAT....cause the Domino theory is Alive and well today with Radical Islam.
Now I got a question for you. If these mad dogs will do that to THEIR OWN PEOPLE, what do you think they will do to you as an American?
Now since you pulled Murray Rothbard out of your hat with "a person can't be a conservative blah blah blah"....here is something to chew on.....NATIONAL DEFENSE is one of the enumerated powers of Govt in the Constitution, roll it up & shove it up Murry's puckered asshole and light it on fire.
I see the writing of someone so oblivious to what freedom is and what it means to PRESERVE it that he cannot conceive of a regime which beheads people for religious beliefs --- or in Islam's case a refusal to adopt their death cult. He reads only the Israel-hating leftist nonsense which blames Jews for all Mideast woes and never the Saudi family funding such madness in that region. His world is simple if Jews only went away, but they will not and never will. That land is theirs and no amount of UN treason will change that.
O/T: BAE Lemur. Gotta freakin' love it!
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 07, 2016, 06:52:28 PM
Do the names Frank Gaffney and Bridgett Gabriel mean anything to you? These two individuals are influential members of the Anti-Islam Lobby in the United States. Their covert propaganda has been filtered through various Right-Wing news outlets and through ostensibly Christian religious organizations.
Your support for the "War on Terror" and insistence that we are fighting a war against "radical Islam" is troubling because I fear you might have allowed yourselves to be swayed by misinformation campaigns perpetrated by groups that do not have your best interest at heart.
The journalist David Noriega wrote a great article recently called "Meet the Charming, Terrifying Face of the the Anti-Islam Lobby":
https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidnoriega/meet-the-charming-terrifying-face-of-the-anti-islam-lobby?utm_term=.brwQLRp2eg#.xnEEW13b5q
In fact, Noriega was interviewed on one of my favorite radio programs and podcasts, The Scott Horton Show:
http://scotthorton.org/interviews/93016-david-noriega-2/
I really encourage you to listen to this interview. You owe it to yourself to at least have a good idea of what type of people are behind promoting the ideas you are parroting.
When I was gone, it was quite comical to read that some of you think I'm not sufficiently a "man" or I've got low testosterone simply because I'm against aggressive war. By that logic, we ought to chastise all men who oppose rape and murder for being girly-men, not sufficiently masculine.
I understand that there are people who have gotten something positive from their time in the military. There's no question that the military can instill positive values, discipline and things of that nature. But people can get these values outside of the military as well.
My main concern is about what the military is asking our soldiers to do to other people in other countries. For those of you who served in Vietnam, you may feel like your time in the military helped you in some way. But this "personal development" occurred at the expense of innocent Vietnamese who were murdered by the thousands.
I am not blaming people who participated in unjust wars if there was a draft and you really didn't have a choice. But you shouldn't praise your "service" or pretend that what you were doing in the waging of an unjust war is morally defensible. At best, you were a victim of temporary enslavement, forced to do the government's killing.
I have to say that I admire the stand of Muhammad Ali, who refused on principle to fight in an unjust war. He sacrificed a lot to take this stand, losing five years of his athletic prime when he was prohibited from boxing. I don't expect everyone to have the courage to take a stand like this, but if more soldiers refused to comply with immoral orders, we could have averted untold numbers of war crimes and brought many unjust wars to an earlier end.
I've made this point before, but you seem to have ignored it thus far so it bears repeating. You cannot be a supporter of limited, Constitutional government and be a supporter of military empire and a Defense budget of $700 Billion a year. The growth of government has been the greatest under conditions of war. Randolph Borne said "war is the health of the State". If you continue to support these wars and offer unconditional and uncritical support for our military, then the government will continue to grow, the national debt will skyrocket, our liberties will be taken from us and eventually we'll be living under martial law and a Totalitarian State, unless we are all destroyed in a Nuclear War.
Murray Rothbard said that the issue of war and peace is at the heart of libertarianism. Proponents of small government, whether they be libertarians or constitutional conservatives, must be anti-war or else they are complete frauds.
Pure unadulterated Bull Shit!!!
Quote from: quiller on October 07, 2016, 08:17:27 PM
:thumbup:
I see the writing of someone so oblivious to what freedom is and what it means to PRESERVE it that he cannot conceive of a regime which beheads people for religious beliefs --- or in Islam's case a refusal to adopt their death cult. He reads only the Israel-hating leftist nonsense which blames Jews for all Mideast woes and never the Saudi family funding such madness in that region. His world is simple if Jews only went away, but they will not and never will. That land is theirs and no amount of UN treason will change that.
O/T: BAE Lemur. Gotta freakin' love it!
I don't think he has clue one about the religious divisions in Islam and the lust for supreme power to make "their" particular sect the paramount. The denial of the facts are almost fanatical in itself.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on October 07, 2016, 07:41:03 PM
Back after your Sabbatical I see and spewing a fresh load of horse manure.
So Now Islamic Terrorism is a figment of our imagination cooked up by these Boris and Natasha like characters who have the powers of evil comic book super villains using some sort of mind control machine I suppose. So says your new idol some guy named Noriega.
Listen up real good.
THE TERRORISTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TERRORISM, THUS, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR ON TERROR. THEY are responsible for the steps the Govt must take to counter them. Every time you get your cojones groped at the airport, you can thank an Islamic Terrorist because they make it necessary to take such steps.
And stop making a fool of yourself over the Vietnam war, there was another case in which VIETNAMESE, killed more VIETNAMESE than AMERICAN BOMBS EVER DID....just like I told you is the case with Islamic terrorism. Once the American forces left, there was a bloody slaughter and a purge....ever heard of "boat People"? What do you think they were running from? The spill over of that war into Cambodia saw one of the worst genocides since WW2 the killing of perhaps 3 million Khmers by other Khmers, rather proves my point....AGAIN. It also proves that the "Domino theory" which was one of the basis for the Southeast Asian War is also true. GO BACK AND RE READ THAT....cause the Domino theory is Alive and well today with Radical Islam.
Now I got a question for you. If these mad dogs will do that to THEIR OWN PEOPLE, what do you think they will do to you as an American?
Now since you pulled Murray Rothbard out of your hat with "a person can't be a conservative blah blah blah"....here is something to chew on.....NATIONAL DEFENSE is one of the enumerated powers of Govt in the Constitution, roll it up & shove it up Murry's puckered asshole and light it on fire.
Terrorism is not a figment of our imaginations, but the threat we face from terrorism has very little to do with Islam per se. If you have been plugged into conservative news outlets for years, then many of the views you are hearing will have been handed down from figures like Gaffney and Gabriele. The reason people like this want you to be suspicion of Islam as a religion is that it gives them the pretext to launch and maintain their aggressive wars. If you were to view terrorism as primarily a manifestation of blowback for our foreign policy, then the logical step would be to pull back and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy instead. If you keep getting stung by bees, you might want to consider ceasing to hit the hornets nest with a baseball bat.
Terrorists are responsible for their actions, true enough. But if we understand that the anger which motivates their attacks has to do with resentment over our foreign policy, then it is reasonable to expect that when we cease our interventions into the middle east we will see fewer terrorist attacks. Robert Pape has demonstrated that this is precisely what has happened historically.
Terrorists are responsible for terrorism, but WE are responsible for how we respond to terrorist attacks. You are acting like everything our government does as a response to terrorism is necessary and unavoidable. Do you really think we should have a TSA that gropes us at airports? Do you think it is necessary to sacrifice all our liberties?
Remember when Rahm Emmanuel said "never let a good crisis go to waste"? Regardless of the causes of a crisis, governments will tend to use those crises to expand their own power even in ways that have nothing to do with responding to the crisis at hand.
Surely you don't think that invading Iraq was justified because Osama bin Laden carried out an attack on the World Trade Center, right? Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq, the Secular nation that was opposed to Al Qaeda and radical Islamic groups.
I cannot fucking believe that you are defending the Vietnam War in 2016. The Vietnam War was precipitated by a False Flag event perpetrated by our CIA. This is known as the
Gulf of Tonkin incident. Over 60,000 Americans were killed in that war, and hundreds of thousands more were left with horrible PTSD, many who were crippled or ended up committing suicide. Many more continue to be treated in our health care system for the scars, both mental and physical, they suffered during that unnecessary war.
You are defending this?! I'm not personally attacking anyone who was drafted and had to go over and fight in that war. To me, ya'll are the victims of a vicious foreign policy. But don't continue to defend the war itself.
Finally, national
DEFENSE is one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I can't believe I have to explain to grown-ass educated adults the difference between defense and aggression. The Vietnam War was an undeclared, aggressive war that was sold based on propaganda and a False Flag event. The Iraq War was an undeclared, aggressive war based on propaganda.
The only US War in the 20th century that could be remotely defended as being necessary for our National Defense was World War 2. And World War 2 would not have happened had we not gotten involved in World War 1 a couple of decades earlier.
The Constitution does not permit the maintenance of military bases in 170 countries around the world. Nor does it permit interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, overthrowing elected governments and installing puppet dictators. It doesn't permit the sort of entangling alliance we have with the State of Israel. Most of the foreign policy you evidently support is blatantly UN-constitutional.
Quote from: quiller on October 07, 2016, 07:52:23 PM
Every time some gutless punk too scared to volunteer for national service even DARES to tell me what Vietnam was all about, I get 100% amused.
This puke wasn't even alive then. This lying little fraud too scared to serve the very country ALLOWING him these rights he claims....?
He's trash. And from now on, he is mine. All mine, with the big red Q branded on his worthless and ignorant ass.
It's not a matter of being "scared". I don't want to offer myself up as canon-fodder for sociopathic politicians. I'm not going to support policies that are deeply immoral. I'm not going to throw my life away for nothing.
I'm being completely consistent. I refuse to go and serve in a deeply immoral war and I don't want anyone else to go and throw their lives away in a senseless war, either.
Honestly, I don't even know how you can do the mental gymnastics necessary for you to justify this foreign policy in your own head.
Quote from: Solar on October 07, 2016, 08:22:03 PM
Pure unadulterated Bull Shit!!!
I'll revise my statement to be more precise. Small government libertarians and conservatives must be anti-
aggressive war and against imperialism, skeptical of the military and the military industrial complex or else they are frauds.
A military which is capable of providing for the national defense is paramount to secure our freedom from foreign aggressors but a military which exceeds this narrow mandate is a very dangerous thing. An out-of-control military industrial complex and imperialistic foreign policy pose the greatest threat to our liberties, period.
What, exactly, about this statement is "pure unadulterated bull shit"?
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 07, 2016, 08:52:37 PM
It's not a matter of being "scared". I don't want to offer myself up as canon-fodder for sociopathic politicians. I'm not going to support policies that are deeply immoral. I'm not going to throw my life away for nothing.
I'm being completely consistent. I refuse to go and serve in a deeply immoral war and I don't want anyone else to go and throw their lives away in a senseless war, either.
Honestly, I don't even know how you can do the mental gymnastics necessary for you to justify this foreign policy in your own head.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqrbfgkfsssssxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frdfqfgqrgxwtwtqtfwk%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fkillerparasites233x175-vi.jpg&hash=56ab0160b3ffbdd2404d6f1e361869705f3631cd)
Don't talk about cannon fodder, you testicle-free trash. You're too ignorant to even know what that is. What you are is a parasite determined to let others defend America while you suck up every benefit you can lay your worthless hands on.
Would you fight to defend America against Islam? Hell no. You'd surrender. Would you defend America under ANY circumstances? Hell no. You'd run and it's plainly obvious you would do so. Let OTHER people serve. You've got benefits to collect, unearned.
Preach lies to the gullible, child. I've heard pacifist trash like yours for DECADES. All you are is a leech, willing to enjoy freedoms you would never ever fight to retain much less earn.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 07, 2016, 11:13:33 PM
What, exactly, about this statement is "pure unadulterated bull shit"?
Every word, including "and" and "the."
Quote from: quiller on October 08, 2016, 04:51:16 AM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqrbfgkfsssssxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frdfqfgqrgxwtwtqtfwk%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fkillerparasites233x175-vi.jpg&hash=56ab0160b3ffbdd2404d6f1e361869705f3631cd)
Don't talk about cannon fodder, you testicle-free trash. You're too ignorant to even know what that is. What you are is a parasite determined to let others defend America while you suck up every benefit you can lay your worthless hands on.
Would you fight to defend America against Islam? Hell no. You'd surrender. Would you defend America under ANY circumstances? Hell no. You'd run and it's plainly obvious you would do so. Let OTHER people serve. You've got benefits to collect, unearned.
Preach lies to the gullible, child. I've heard pacifist trash like yours for DECADES. All you are is a leech, willing to enjoy freedoms you would never ever fight to retain much less earn.
jrodefeld probably agrees with Hillary's "open borders" policy.
For the leftists, let it be crystal clear here that "cannon fodder" are those who ACTUALLY SHOWED UP before they were killed in battle. Gutless Lying Puke wouldn't even bring himself that far.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 07, 2016, 11:13:33 PM
I'll revise my statement to be more precise. Small government libertarians and conservatives must be anti-aggressive war and against imperialism, skeptical of the military and the military industrial complex or else they are frauds.
A military which is capable of providing for the national defense is paramount to secure our freedom from foreign aggressors but a military which exceeds this narrow mandate is a very dangerous thing. An out-of-control military industrial complex and imperialistic foreign policy pose the greatest threat to our liberties, period.
What, exactly, about this statement is "pure unadulterated bull shit"?
Dude, I was a pacifist through high school in the 60s and 70s. You think the bullies said, "He's a pacifist, we'll leave him alone?" No, it encourage more abuse and aggression.
It wasn't until my Dad took me to the Y and got me in a boxing class that thing changed.
The point? To paraphrase David Letterman: Life is high school with money.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 07, 2016, 11:13:33 PM
I'll revise my statement to be more precise. Small government libertarians and conservatives must be anti-aggressive war and against imperialism, skeptical of the military and the military industrial complex or else they are frauds.
A military which is capable of providing for the national defense is paramount to secure our freedom from foreign aggressors but a military which exceeds this narrow mandate is a very dangerous thing. An out-of-control military industrial complex and imperialistic foreign policy pose the greatest threat to our liberties, period.
What, exactly, about this statement is "pure unadulterated bull shit"?
Reagan proved you wrong when he rebuilt the military the Dims destroyed, then proceeded to destroy the USSR without ever firing a shot, brought down the Iron Curtain with a single demand: "Mr Gorbachev, Tear down This WALL!"
Oh I get it, this all happened before you were born, so what you you were taught as history is opposite of reality.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 07, 2016, 11:13:33 PM
I'll revise my statement to be more precise. Small government libertarians and conservatives must be anti-aggressive war and against imperialism, skeptical of the military and the military industrial complex or else they are frauds.
A military which is capable of providing for the national defense is paramount to secure our freedom from foreign aggressors but a military which exceeds this narrow mandate is a very dangerous thing. An out-of-control military industrial complex and imperialistic foreign policy pose the greatest threat to our liberties, period.
What, exactly, about this statement is "pure unadulterated bull shit"?
Sounds good. Let Allah know....
Quote from: Solar on October 08, 2016, 09:39:03 AM
Reagan proved you wrong when he rebuilt the militray the Dims destroyed, then proceeded to destroy the USSR without ever firing a shot, brought down the Iron Curtain with a single demand: "Mr Gorbachev, Tear down This WALL!"
Oh I get it, this all happened before you were born, so what you you were taught as history is opposite of reality.
I see you did not learn a damn thing from your time-out about freedom. It's the military that give you the freedom that allows you to keep fling poo in hopes it will stick. It's not the Dem's or other country's that give you that freedom.
Quote from: quiller on October 08, 2016, 04:51:16 AM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqrbfgkfsssssxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Frdfqfgqrgxwtwtqtfwk%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fkillerparasites233x175-vi.jpg&hash=56ab0160b3ffbdd2404d6f1e361869705f3631cd)
Don't talk about cannon fodder, you testicle-free trash. You're too ignorant to even know what that is. What you are is a parasite determined to let others defend America while you suck up every benefit you can lay your worthless hands on.
Would you fight to defend America against Islam? Hell no. You'd surrender. Would you defend America under ANY circumstances? Hell no. You'd run and it's plainly obvious you would do so. Let OTHER people serve. You've got benefits to collect, unearned.
Preach lies to the gullible, child. I've heard pacifist trash like yours for DECADES. All you are is a leech, willing to enjoy freedoms you would never ever fight to retain much less earn.
I'm not a pacifist. I'm a non-interventionist. I believe that violence is morally defensible in self-defense only. Yes, I'd be willing to defend America against an invasion from a foreign military. But our military is not being used to defend America. It's being used to provoke conflicts in the Middle East. The War in Iraq was an un-justified act of aggression by our military against a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our national security.
If I joined the military when I was 18 or 19, I would have certainly been deployed to Iraq. I chose not to support this horrific invasion perpetrated by our military. You should be commending me for refusing to support evil, not chastising me because I didn't go and kill a bunch of Iraqis that never threatened me.
Quote from: Solar on October 08, 2016, 09:39:03 AM
Reagan proved you wrong when he rebuilt the military the Dims destroyed, then proceeded to destroy the USSR without ever firing a shot, brought down the Iron Curtain with a single demand: "Mr Gorbachev, Tear down This WALL!"
Oh I get it, this all happened before you were born, so what you you were taught as history is opposite of reality.
The USSR fell because they had an economic system that was non-viable from the start. They also fell because they foolishly put troops into Afghanistan and spread their resources too thin. Austrian school economists predicted that Socialist Central Planning was always doomed to failure because without price signals in capital goods in a market, horrible inefficiencies result. Eventual economic collapse is inevitable with Socialist nations.
I can support Reagan's public denouncements of Communism and the USSR in particular. It is an appropriate role for the President to use the bully pulpit to denounce evil.
But Reagan also showed good judgment when he quickly "cut and ran" from Lebanon.
QuoteThirty years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan made perhaps the most purposeful and consequential foreign-policy decision of his presidency. Though he never said so explicitly, he ended America's military commitment to a strategic mistake that was peripheral to America's interests. Three-and-a-half months after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. military personnel — and after repeatedly pledging not to do so — Reagan ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Lebanon. As Gen. Colin Powell later aptly summarized this military misadventure: "Beirut wasn't sensible and it never did serve a purpose. It was goofy from the beginning."
What was particularly remarkable about Reagan's bold decision was its rarity. Presidents often authorize using force or deploying troops to achieve some discrete set of political and military objectives. When they prove incapable of doing so with the initial resources and political support, the mission can be scaled back in its scope, enlarged to achieve additional missions, or, the atypical choice, terminated. The latter option requires having the ability to recognize failure, and political courage to end a U.S. military commitment. In large part, it is a combined lack of strategic awareness and political courage that explains many U.S. military disasters. To understand how Ronald Reagan successfully pulled this off, it is worth reviewing and remembering the strategic mistake that was the U.S. military deployment to Lebanon in the midst of that country's wrenching civil war.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/when-reagan-cut-and-run/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/reagans-withdrawal-from-lebanon-and-hard-liners-misreading-of-history/
In this instance, Reagan showed better judgment than all of the neo-conservatives who followed him. We could have recognized the complete failure of the Iraq War in 2005 or 2006 and promptly withdrew our military from the region. Instead, the hard-liners instituted the so-called "surge" and we kept our troops there for another six or seven years.
If we understood the internal contradictions of the communist economic program, we never had to view them as a military threat to take over the world. Their system was bound to collapse sooner or later. They had nuclear weapons of course, so caution was warranted. What wasn't warranted was the hysteria and arms buildup that our military industrial complex lobbied for throughout the Cold War.
Quote from: walkstall on October 08, 2016, 01:36:20 PM
I see you did not learn a damn thing from your time-out about freedom. It's the military that give you the freedom that allows you to keep fling poo in hopes it will stick. It's not the Dem's or other country's that give you that freedom.
I've never said we shouldn't have a military. Even in a State-less society, free people would have some sort of military to repel foreign invaders and protect their liberties. I'm objecting to our foreign policy. I'm objecting to what we are asking our military to do.
I'm objecting to the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. I'm against nation-building and CIA covert coups against democratically elected governments in other nations. I'm against paying for the defense of other nations who should be managing their own security needs. I'm against maintaining bases and troops in 170 countries around the world.
I'm against the National Security State that monitors our phone calls and reads our metadata.
These actions taken by the US military do nothing to keep me safe or protect my liberties. On the contrary, these actions make me less safe and deprive me of my liberty.
The debate we are having is, how much should we be spending on our military budget each year? What should our foreign policy be? What constitutes a Just War?
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 08, 2016, 03:50:47 PM
I've never said we shouldn't have a military. Even in a State-less society, free people would have some sort of military to repel foreign invaders and protect their liberties. I'm objecting to our foreign policy. I'm objecting to what we are asking our military to do.
I'm objecting to the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. I'm against nation-building and CIA covert coups against democratically elected governments in other nations. I'm against paying for the defense of other nations who should be managing their own security needs. I'm against maintaining bases and troops in 170 countries around the world.
I'm against the National Security State that monitors our phone calls and reads our metadata.
These actions taken by the US military do nothing to keep me safe or protect my liberties. On the contrary, these actions make me less safe and deprive me of my liberty.
The debate we are having is, how much should we be spending on our military budget each year? What should our foreign policy be? What constitutes a Just War?
When are you going to tell us about "blowback"?
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 07, 2016, 08:47:37 PM
Terrorism is not a figment of our imaginations, but the threat we face from terrorism has very little to do with Islam per se. If you have been plugged into conservative news outlets for years, then many of the views you are hearing will have been handed down from figures like Gaffney and Gabriele. The reason people like this want you to be suspicion of Islam as a religion is that it gives them the pretext to launch and maintain their aggressive wars. If you were to view terrorism as primarily a manifestation of blowback for our foreign policy, then the logical step would be to pull back and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy instead. If you keep getting stung by bees, you might want to consider ceasing to hit the hornets nest with a baseball bat.
Terrorists are responsible for their actions, true enough. But if we understand that the anger which motivates their attacks has to do with resentment over our foreign policy, then it is reasonable to expect that when we cease our interventions into the middle east we will see fewer terrorist attacks. Robert Pape has demonstrated that this is precisely what has happened historically.
Terrorists are responsible for terrorism, but WE are responsible for how we respond to terrorist attacks. You are acting like everything our government does as a response to terrorism is necessary and unavoidable. Do you really think we should have a TSA that gropes us at airports? Do you think it is necessary to sacrifice all our liberties?
Remember when Rahm Emmanuel said "never let a good crisis go to waste"? Regardless of the causes of a crisis, governments will tend to use those crises to expand their own power even in ways that have nothing to do with responding to the crisis at hand.
Surely you don't think that invading Iraq was justified because Osama bin Laden carried out an attack on the World Trade Center, right? Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq, the Secular nation that was opposed to Al Qaeda and radical Islamic groups.
I cannot fucking believe that you are defending the Vietnam War in 2016. The Vietnam War was precipitated by a False Flag event perpetrated by our CIA. This is known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Over 60,000 Americans were killed in that war, and hundreds of thousands more were left with horrible PTSD, many who were crippled or ended up committing suicide. Many more continue to be treated in our health care system for the scars, both mental and physical, they suffered during that unnecessary war.
You are defending this?! I'm not personally attacking anyone who was drafted and had to go over and fight in that war. To me, ya'll are the victims of a vicious foreign policy. But don't continue to defend the war itself.
Finally, national DEFENSE is one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I can't believe I have to explain to grown-ass educated adults the difference between defense and aggression. The Vietnam War was an undeclared, aggressive war that was sold based on propaganda and a False Flag event. The Iraq War was an undeclared, aggressive war based on propaganda.
The only US War in the 20th century that could be remotely defended as being necessary for our National Defense was World War 2. And World War 2 would not have happened had we not gotten involved in World War 1 a couple of decades earlier.
The Constitution does not permit the maintenance of military bases in 170 countries around the world. Nor does it permit interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, overthrowing elected governments and installing puppet dictators. It doesn't permit the sort of entangling alliance we have with the State of Israel. Most of the foreign policy you evidently support is blatantly UN-constitutional.
Once again you are (Incorrectly) assuming that my opinions are driven by which ever news outlet maybe the mouthpiece of these two people whom I never heard of. I assure you it is not, My opinions are formed by my experiences. Both in the USA and abroad. That's the difference between you and I. I see end result of terrorism, have experienced them, saw what was happening first hand and know who did it and why AND their motivations. You listen to Pape, or who ever else is out there trying to promote their latest book.
I'm not in this to write a book or make money I'M IN THIS TO SAVE SOMEONE's LIFE....maybe yours...and out of Love for my country, IT's WAY OF LIFE, I truly fear for my Grandchildren....all five of them, two girls, whom I hope will never be forced to wear a full veil, and three boys....whom I hope will grow up to put on a uniform and defend this country, I've already begun to teach them to handle weapons, use their fists and their wits and to strategize.
Guys like me don't listen to people like Pape....PAPE SHOULD BE LISTENING TO US, but since MY FACTS don't fit in with his brand of philosophy of course, so my EXPERTISE is ignored.
Do yourself a favor, get on a plane and go to some 3rd world country where Muslims and whomever, Christians, Buddists, Hindu's are clashing daily and see what terrorism and the advancement of Islam as a conquering force really is.
You just might learn something that Pape or whomever doesn;t put in his books...go ahead...I DARE YOU.
You think I'm defending the Vietnam war? You learned nothing from Historical facts that I enumerated. Man is a ruthless animal who, when left unchecked becomes worse than any plague, natural disaster or force of nature. The slaughter you saw, but apparently ignored, after the SOUTHEAST ASIA WAR....coz that is what is was, more than just Vietnam was involved.
Is prototypical of what happens when man's true nature comes out and there is nothing to stop it. It was the Communists turn, now it is the turn of the Islamofacists.
Just keep telling yourself it will all stop when our forces withdraw from the middle east, scale down our military and stop being such aggressive meanies.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 08, 2016, 03:03:39 PM
I'm not a pacifist. I'm a non-interventionist. I believe that violence is morally defensible in self-defense only. Yes, I'd be willing to defend America against an invasion from a foreign military. But our military is not being used to defend America. It's being used to provoke conflicts in the Middle East. The War in Iraq was an un-justified act of aggression by our military against a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our national security.
If I joined the military when I was 18 or 19, I would have certainly been deployed to Iraq. I chose not to support this horrific invasion perpetrated by our military. You should be commending me for refusing to support evil, not chastising me because I didn't go and kill a bunch of Iraqis that never threatened me.
Lying gutless puke, you didn't even TRY to serve your country. You served only yourself. I do not commend liars and cowards and you are both. Filth like you assume people will buy your lie that EVERY member of the military
(1) goes to Iraq
(2) gets killed by islamoanimals
(3) kills a bunch of islamoanimals
I can see you now lining up to serve as the American Vichy. You're too cowardly to fight.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 08, 2016, 03:43:59 PM
The USSR fell because they had an economic system that was non-viable from the start. They also fell because they foolishly put troops into Afghanistan and spread their resources too thin. Austrian school economists predicted that Socialist Central Planning was always doomed to failure because without price signals in capital goods in a market, horrible inefficiencies result. Eventual economic collapse is inevitable with Socialist nations.
I can support Reagan's public denouncements of Communism and the USSR in particular. It is an appropriate role for the President to use the bully pulpit to denounce evil.
But Reagan also showed good judgment when he quickly "cut and ran" from Lebanon.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/when-reagan-cut-and-run/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/reagans-withdrawal-from-lebanon-and-hard-liners-misreading-of-history/
In this instance, Reagan showed better judgment than all of the neo-conservatives who followed him. We could have recognized the complete failure of the Iraq War in 2005 or 2006 and promptly withdrew our military from the region. Instead, the hard-liners instituted the so-called "surge" and we kept our troops there for another six or seven years.
If we understood the internal contradictions of the communist economic program, we never had to view them as a military threat to take over the world. Their system was bound to collapse sooner or later. They had nuclear weapons of course, so caution was warranted. What wasn't warranted was the hysteria and arms buildup that our military industrial complex lobbied for throughout the Cold War.
This is exactly what I expected, regurgitating leftist rewritten history.
Son, I and most of this forum voted for Reagan, we remember the USSR, and the fact that it was always on the brink, Reagan knew the formula to bring it to an end via geoplitical means and forcing it to spend and spread way beyond it's means.
You can read all the revisionist bull shit you want, but don't try and pull that crap on people that witnessed it firsthand, it's why you keep getting your ass spanked.
Quote from: Solar on October 09, 2016, 08:03:19 AM
This is exactly what I expected, regurgitating leftist rewritten history.
Son, I and most of this forum voted for Reagan, we remember the USSR, and the fact that it was always on the brink, Reagan knew the formula to bring it to an end via geoplitical means and forcing it to spend and spread way beyond it's means.
You can read all the revisionist bull shit you want, but don't try and pull that crap on people that witnessed it firsthand, it's why you keep getting your ass spanked.
Not to mention the world knew Reagan meant business. His bombing of Khadafy's tent sent a message to the world, especially the USSR. We didn't know what good stuff Reagan purchased for the military until 1991 and the Gulf War. He showed why the US was respected, unlike today.
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 09, 2016, 09:02:15 AM
Not to mention the world knew Reagan meant business. His bombing of Khadafy's tent sent a message to the world, especially the USSR. We didn't know what good stuff Reagan purchased for the military until 1991 and the Gulf War. He showed why the US was respected, unlike today.
Friend of mine saw the classified video of the missile that hit the house.
He said it flew just above roof tops, and as it approached the house, dropped down to street level, aimed directly at the door, and you could hear the conversation from command center saying "Knock knock mother fucker" Booom, and all goes gray. :biggrin:
Reagan knew how to deal with terrorists too. I particularly liked the instance where US navy jets were dispatched to intercept an airliner leaving Egypt with murdering Palestinian terrorists aboard who had hijacked the Achille Lauro, murdered US citizen Leon Klinghoffer who was wheelchair bound so the scum threw him off the ship.
They forced the airliner down at a US airbase in Italy and the Italian's went completely nuts, sent some idiot Carbinierri chief to stop them who threatened the special forces soldiers surrounding the aircraft with arrest...they told them....quote....go fk yourselves....which a former colleague of mine heard personally.
That and blowing up Khadaffy's house sent a message to the world they remembered for quite some time.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on October 10, 2016, 07:39:53 PM
Reagan knew how to deal with terrorists too. I particularly liked the instance where US navy jets were dispatched to intercept an airliner leaving Egypt with murdering Palestinian terrorists aboard who had hijacked the Achille Lauro, murdered US citizen Leon Klinghoffer who was wheelchair bound so the scum threw him off the ship.
They forced the airliner down at a US airbase in Italy and the Italian's went completely nuts, sent some idiot Carbinierri chief to stop them who threatened the special forces soldiers surrounding the aircraft with arrest...they told them....quote....go fk yourselves....which a former colleague of mine heard personally.
That and blowing up Khadaffy's house sent a message to the world they remembered for quite some time.
Point made. Strength is all these thugs respect.
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 11, 2016, 06:10:41 AM
Point made. Strength is all these thugs respect.
Instead, another foreign official openly mocks the limpwristed faggot providing cover for the most corrupt Secretary of State in American history.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crtqtqkddrqrqbwsxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fgrgwswsssxfqwbfrtfxbsgbrssfg%2F1%2F1595431%2F13930667%2FLimpWristedFaggot768x517-vi.jpg&hash=d2075e19f3f15b9453cbd3a866478afeef6ddd70)
This thread is an excellent example why no one but a brain dead liberal should vote for the libertarian party. :rolleyes:
It has been my contention that terrorist attacks against the United States are motivated primarily and overwhelmingly by resentment and anger over our military intervention, occupation and bombings of Middle Eastern nations.
Your contention is that this has nothing to do with it and the real motivation has to do with the religious teachings of Islam.
There is literally no evidence to support your contention while there is overwhelming evidence to support my claims. And now, we have additional evidence to bolster my case. I am asking that you read this carefully and respond to the information I am presenting you. You've rejected Robert Pape's studies on the matter, but perhaps you'll consider the FBI's own internal reports. The FBI commissioned internal studies into the causes of homegrown terrorism. And what they found contradicts nearly everything that the media and politicians have claimed.
QuoteThe Intercept recently reported it was given exclusive access to an internal FBI research study which surveyed FBI agents across the country, asking them their thoughts on homegrown terrorists. All of the agents surveyed were involved with over 200 open and closed cases of homegrown terrorism. Here's a brief summary of the findings from the study titled, "Homegrown Violent Extremists: Survey Confirms Key Assessments, Reveals New Insights about Radicalization."
1. Anger over U.S. military operations overseas was the most often cited reason for individuals getting involved in cases of "homegrown" terrorism.
2. Radicalization of homegrown terrorists follow no perceptible pattern.
3. Radical terrorist believe the U.S. military commits atrocities in Muslim countries, and so homegrown terrorists justify their desires to retaliate.
4. Online relationships with terrorists overseas (like Anwar Al-Awlaki) is a contributing factor driving extremism.
5. Exposure to English-language militant propaganda is also cited as key factor driving extremism.
6. Displeasure with U.S. military action was by far the most common factor in homegrown extremism found in 18 percent of the surveys taken.
The U.S. being perceived to be at war against Islam and other factors associated with discrimination were also factors.
All of the aforementioned factors may be why, as the study notes, 10 of the 16 terrorist attacks (achieved or attempted), committed between 2009 and 2012, targeted military personnel or facilities.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-military-atrocities-homegrown-terrorism/#RpAp2XkKJdyHQ6Zz.99
Here is the original article at The Intercept that originally reported on these internal FBI reports:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/us-military-operations-are-biggest-motivation-for-homegrown-terrorists-fbi-study-finds/
Ron Paul and his co-host Daniel McAdams covered the topic on their YouTube program yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDpXHAQoHtk
What is the mental block that is preventing you from acknowledging facts that are presented to you? I've produced overwhelming evidence for the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States and you've provided nothing to defend your position.
If there is an empirical issue that is being debated, we need to have recourse to studies which can ascertain which position is correct. All the studies that have been done support my position on this debate and not yours. There is no ideological bias in these studies either. Experts who are conservative, liberal and libertarian come to the exact same conclusions.
Could you finally respond substantively to the evidence provided here?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csbdgkgqrtwstwqqxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fkfkkgwgsxtdtrwsqf%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2F_why_doesnt_anybody_believe_me-vi.png&hash=3e4ef895e0ee3e0b7d0cfbe5ae2d5d85348482aa)
Troll, you are spewing trash to a blank brick wall.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 13, 2016, 11:03:11 PM
Your contention is that this has nothing to do with it and the real motivation has to do with the religious teachings of Islam.
There is literally no evidence to support your contention while there is overwhelming evidence to support my claims.
What is the mental block that is preventing you from acknowledging facts that are presented to you? I've produced overwhelming evidence for the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States and you've provided nothing to defend your position.
Could you finally respond substantively to the evidence provided here?
It isn't so much the 'evidence' you produce but the
solution your and your sources cite that I contest. DISENGAGING FROM THE MIDDLE AND NOT RESPONDING TO TERRORIST ATTACKS WILL NOT STOP THE TERRORIST ATTACKS AND THE AGENDA OF RADICAL ISLAM
You still fail to see the facts the human side of the equasion. These people have been fighting "the west" since the time of the crusaders, since the time the Mongol hordes almost wiped out the Persian empire to a man. Since some British cartographer drew lines on a map a hundred years ago.
To them it has been insult after insult, road block after road block, "the west", the non Muslim world, specifically America is the only thing that stands in the way of a Muslim world .
They want REVENGE for insults and slights and transgression from 2,000 years back. They will want it for another 2,000 years for what the US has done in the past 75 years. Kill one Muslim and we have to kill infidels for 2,000 years, no other option. When you understand that attitude when you TRULY KNOW YOUR ENEMY AS YOU KNOW YOURSELF you may finally see the light. Until then you are thinking like a logical, Western Christian based societal raised Western man.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 13, 2016, 11:03:11 PM
It has been my contention that terrorist attacks against the United States are motivated primarily and overwhelmingly by resentment and anger over our military intervention, occupation and bombings of Middle Eastern nations.
Your contention is that this has nothing to do with it and the real motivation has to do with the religious teachings of Islam.
There is literally no evidence to support your contention while there is overwhelming evidence to support my claims. And now, we have additional evidence to bolster my case. I am asking that you read this carefully and respond to the information I am presenting you. You've rejected Robert Pape's studies on the matter, but perhaps you'll consider the FBI's own internal reports. The FBI commissioned internal studies into the causes of homegrown terrorism. And what they found contradicts nearly everything that the media and politicians have claimed.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-military-atrocities-homegrown-terrorism/#RpAp2XkKJdyHQ6Zz.99
Here is the original article at The Intercept that originally reported on these internal FBI reports:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/us-military-operations-are-biggest-motivation-for-homegrown-terrorists-fbi-study-finds/
Ron Paul and his co-host Daniel McAdams covered the topic on their YouTube program yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDpXHAQoHtk
What is the mental block that is preventing you from acknowledging facts that are presented to you? I've produced overwhelming evidence for the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States and you've provided nothing to defend your position.
If there is an empirical issue that is being debated, we need to have recourse to studies which can ascertain which position is correct. All the studies that have been done support my position on this debate and not yours. There is no ideological bias in these studies either. Experts who are conservative, liberal and libertarian come to the exact same conclusions.
Could you finally respond substantively to the evidence provided here?
Walks, give this moron one final timeout, he was told to quit derailing threads.
This is your last chance Rodentfeeler, do it again and you're gone without explanation!
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on October 14, 2016, 04:48:24 AM
It isn't so much the 'evidence' you produce but the solution your and your sources cite that I contest. DISENGAGING FROM THE MIDDLE AND NOT RESPONDING TO TERRORIST ATTACKS WILL NOT STOP THE TERRORIST ATTACKS AND THE AGENDA OF RADICAL ISLAM
You still fail to see the facts the human side of the equasion. These people have been fighting "the west" since the time of the crusaders, since the time the Mongol hordes almost wiped out the Persian empire to a man. Since some British cartographer drew lines on a map a hundred years ago.
To them it has been insult after insult, road block after road block, "the west", the non Muslim world, specifically America is the only thing that stands in the way of a Muslim world .
They want REVENGE for insults and slights and transgression from 2,000 years back. They will want it for another 2,000 years for what the US has done in the past 75 years. Kill one Muslim and we have to kill infidels for 2,000 years, no other option. When you understand that attitude when you TRULY KNOW YOUR ENEMY AS YOU KNOW YOURSELF you may finally see the light. Until then you are thinking like a logical, Western Christian based societal raised Western man.
This makes no sense. What you are failing to recognize is that a Muslim could justifiably claim that the "west" and Christianity has been waging a largely unprovoked war against THEM over the past century and they feel themselves to be defending their people against Western Crusaders.
You say they want revenge for insults and slights from 2,000 years back.
No they don't. I cannot make this any more clear. You simply glossed over the information I presented to you. We don't have the speculate about the motives of Muslim terrorists, we have tons of empirical studies that have assessed what the motivating factors are. No terrorists decide to blow themselves up or shoot up a night club because of something that happened 2,000 years ago. They are attacking largely for a few reasons:
1. Revenge for US foreign policy. If you had actually read anything I wrote, you'd notice that roughly 75% of homegrown terrorist attacks against the US have been perpetrated against military targets. Having your family instantly killed in a drone strike or having your brother unjustly incarcerated and tortured at Guantanamo has the effect of creating resentment and anger.
2. The feeling that Muslims are being persecuted by Christian crusaders. They feel justifiably that there is growing bigotry against peaceful Muslims that has been fostered and promoted by Neo-Con think tanks, Likud Party officials, and influential members of the Military Industrial Complex. They feel backed into a corner and a sense of obligation to defend their people from persecution.
Even putting all this aside, Muslims in the middle east are very, very weak. Even with all the blowback that our military presence incites, Americans are more likely to be hit by lightning twice than to be killed by a terrorist attack.
If we are concerned with our national security, we have a realistically assess threats. A bunch of misfits in third world nations have no possible ability to confront us militarily. There will be no "worldwide caliphate". Even stipulating that some of these terrorists are motivated for purely reasons of religious dogma, they have no possible chance of achieving their goals. Are we to engage militarily in the Middle East in perpetuity, losing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives because some people have delusions about overthrowing Western governments and defeating Christianity?
The March, 2011, Harper's Index noted:
Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.QuoteIf you are worried that ISIS might strike the United States and want to prevent the loss of American lives, consider urging Congress to invest in diabetes and Alzheimer's research.
Terrorism is effective in doing what its name says: inspiring profound fear. But despite unremitting coverage of the Paris attacks, an objective examination of the facts shows that terrorism is an insignificant danger to the vast majority of people in the West.
You, your family members, your friends, and your community are all significantly more at risk from a host of threats that we usually ignore than from terrorism. For instance, while the Paris attacks left some 130 people dead, roughly three times that number of French citizens died on that same day from cancer.
In the United States, an individual's likelihood of being hurt or killed by a terrorist (whether an Islamist radical or some other variety) is negligible.
Consider, for instance, that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been no more likely to die at the hands of terrorists than being crushed to death by unstable televisions and furniture.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818
Do you understand that there are opportunity costs to pouring all these resources into waging war in the Middle East? If this money was freely available in the economy instead of being squandered by our government, we might be curing cancer or feeding the poor or any number of things that would save a lot more lives.
So even if you were right about radical Islam and the motivations for terrorist attacks (and you emphatically aren't), it would STILL be a catastrophic waste of lives and resources to fight these wars in the Middle East.
Terrorism is a tactic that is used by weak people against a much stronger opponent. Overwhelmingly, the motivations for terrorist attacks have to do with resentment over foreign occupation. The goal of a terrorist attack is to provoke fear and an illogical and excessive response.
By bleeding ourselves dry financially in the Middle East over the past decade and a half, we've been doing Bin Laden's work for him. He could never take us down by launching terrorist attacks. But we can destroy our own economy through our own foolishness.
In fact, Osama bin Laden stated this goal quite clearly in 2004:
QuoteThe Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 14, 2016, 05:39:04 AM
This makes no sense. What you are failing to recognize is that a Muslim could justifiably claim that the "west" and Christianity has been waging a largely unprovoked war against THEM over the past century and they feel themselves to be defending their people against Western Crusaders.
You say they want revenge for insults and slights from 2,000 years back. No they don't. I cannot make this any more clear. You simply glossed over the information I presented to you. We don't have the speculate about the motives of Muslim terrorists, we have tons of empirical studies that have assessed what the motivating factors are. No terrorists decide to blow themselves up or shoot up a night club because of something that happened 2,000 years ago. They are attacking largely for a few reasons:
1. Revenge for US foreign policy. If you had actually read anything I wrote, you'd notice that roughly 75% of homegrown terrorist attacks against the US have been perpetrated against military targets. Having your family instantly killed in a drone strike or having your brother unjustly incarcerated and tortured at Guantanamo has the effect of creating resentment and anger.
2. The feeling that Muslims are being persecuted by Christian crusaders. They feel justifiably that there is growing bigotry against peaceful Muslims that has been fostered and promoted by Neo-Con think tanks, Likud Party officials, and influential members of the Military Industrial Complex. They feel backed into a corner and a sense of obligation to defend their people from persecution.
Even putting all this aside, Muslims in the middle east are very, very weak. Even with all the blowback that our military presence incites, Americans are more likely to be hit by lightning twice than to be killed by a terrorist attack.
If we are concerned with our national security, we have a realistically assess threats. A bunch of misfits in third world nations have no possible ability to confront us militarily. There will be no "worldwide caliphate". Even stipulating that some of these terrorists are motivated for purely reasons of religious dogma, they have no possible chance of achieving their goals. Are we to engage militarily in the Middle East in perpetuity, losing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives because some people have delusions about overthrowing Western governments and defeating Christianity?
The March, 2011, Harper's Index noted:
Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818
Do you understand that there are opportunity costs to pouring all these resources into waging war in the Middle East? If this money was freely available in the economy instead of being squandered by our government, we might be curing cancer or feeding the poor or any number of things that would save a lot more lives.
So even if you were right about radical Islam and the motivations for terrorist attacks (and you emphatically aren't), it would STILL be a catastrophic waste of lives and resources to fight these wars in the Middle East.
Terrorism is a tactic that is used by weak people against a much stronger opponent. Overwhelmingly, the motivations for terrorist attacks have to do with resentment over foreign occupation. The goal of a terrorist attack is to provoke fear and an illogical and excessive response.
By bleeding ourselves dry financially in the Middle East over the past decade and a half, we've been doing Bin Laden's work for him. He could never take us down by launching terrorist attacks. But we can destroy our own economy through our own foolishness.
In fact, Osama bin Laden stated this goal quite clearly in 2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
You stupid Fuck! I just gave you a final warning and you continue on derailing, so consider that your last post.
You're out of here!
Thank you. :thumbup:
Quote from: tac on October 14, 2016, 06:13:47 AM
Thank you. :thumbup:
I never cared that his opinion was twisted and wrong on every level, or that what little history he gleaned came from leftist opinion pieces, what bugged me, was his myopic view of libertarianism and HIS focus on America being the problem, to an issue that's plagued man for nearly a millenia, Muscum.
But to derail every thread he enters and deflect for the Muscum and blame the US, was the final straw.
Quote from: Solar on October 14, 2016, 06:32:49 AM
I never cared that his opinion was twisted and wrong on every level, or that what little history he gleaned came from leftist opinion pieces, what bugged me, was his myopic view of libertarianism and HIS focus on America being the problem, to an issue that's plagued man for nearly a millenia, Muscum.
But to derail every thread he enters and deflect for the Muscum and blame the US, was the final straw.
He was good at derailing threads with his ME message.
Quote from: Solar on October 14, 2016, 06:05:41 AM
You stupid Fuck! I just gave you a final warning and you continue on derailing, so consider that your last post.
You're out of here!
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Solar on October 14, 2016, 06:32:49 AM
I never cared that his opinion was twisted and wrong on every level, or that what little history he gleaned came from leftist opinion pieces, what bugged me, was his myopic view of libertarianism and HIS focus on America being the problem, to an issue that's plagued man for nearly a millenia, Muscum.
But to derail every thread he enters and deflect for the Muscum and blame the US, was the final straw.
:thumbup:
I never could understand how he could read what Billy's bayonet had to say and still would blame America first. Billy had it laid out so anyone could understand what the problem was and jrodefeld could not get it. His professer must have had the strong koolaid that day.
Quote from: s3779m on October 14, 2016, 01:17:37 PM
:thumbup:
I never could understand how he could read what Billy's bayonet had to say and still would blame America first. Billy had it laid out so anyone could understand what the problem was and jrodefeld could not get it. His professer must have had the strong koolaid that day.
He is a typical lib "blame America first" advocate. Unfortuntely, I don't think he even recognizes that.
Quote from: s3779m on October 14, 2016, 01:17:37 PM
:thumbup:
I never could understand how he could read what Billy's bayonet had to say and still would blame America first. Billy had it laid out so anyone could understand what the problem was and jrodefeld could not get it. His professer must have had the strong koolaid that day.
I'm guessing he has latent hippy running through his blood, Marxist with a hint Libertarianism coated in essence of modern day snowflakeism.
Quote from: Solar on October 14, 2016, 01:44:44 PM
I'm guessing he has latent hippy running through his blood, Marxist with a hint Libertarianism coated in essence of modern day snowflakeism.
So I take it this is now a jrodefeld free safety zone.
Quote from: walkstall on October 14, 2016, 03:51:25 PM
So I take it this is now a jrodefeld free safety zone.
The Creepy Clown has leftist the building.
Quote from: Solar on October 14, 2016, 04:50:15 PM
The Creepy Clown has leftist the building.
I hope he took his med with him. A day without pot will be a day without sunshine for him.
Prototypical of the left. Close minded, keeps repeating the same old rhetoric with the same old buzzwords refuses to look at the facts and goes with emotion. Then the guy admits to selling pot....that explains a lot. :popcorn:
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on October 14, 2016, 05:40:10 PM
Prototypical of the left. Close minded, keeps repeating the same old rhetoric with the same old buzzwords refuses to look at the facts and goes with emotion. Then the guy admits to selling pot....that explains a lot. :popcorn:
What's so fascinating is how much you lack in self-awareness. Far from "going with emotion", my opinions are based on empirical studies (see Robert Pape), expert testimony (see former CIA Bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer) and a great deal of reading on both history and political philosophy. I'm quite sure I've posted more articles, peer-reviewed studies, lectures by experts and hard data points than everyone else on this forum combined. And not one of the links and sources I've used to defend my positions has been even addressed.
You may not agree with my views, but you can't in good faith claim that my views are based on "emotion" and that I'm ignoring facts. I'm the one who has been attempting to provide hard evidence for my views, while you are relying on anecdotes and buzzwords.
If you ever actually provide a link to an article by an actual journalist that corroborates your claims, or to a peer-reviewed study of any kind, I WILL read it and critique it fully. This is what I usually try to do.
Let me ask an honest question.
Have any of you actually clicked on any the links I've posted, watched any of the YouTube videos or looked at any of the PDF files and research papers I've cited?Why don't you go back to my last post where I posted several links and respond to my specific claims? I will reciprocate if you provide me with anything that you can find to support your positions.
What I've heard from y'all is that you don't trust articles, empirical studies and journalism and you're telling me that in lieu of this your personal experience and anecdotal experiences in foreign lands and in the military are an adequate substitute.
One person even said "People like Pape should be listening to me and people like me" (paraphrase), which rather incredibly implies that he hasn't spoken to people who hold your views.
The claim is that actual hard science can be substituted for anecdotal experience. I am telling you that this is absolutely
false. You may feel one way about the nature of Islam as a religion, about terrorism and the motivations for terrorist attacks but you have to yield to hard science and exhaustive studies which, frankly, prove your central claims completely wrong.
I've rarely seen such substance-less posts on a forum. Why not try this again?
You all can go back to the previous page and disprove what I claimed, read the links I posted and explain why this evidence is not correct and why my arguments are fallacious.
Then you can post some links to articles and empirical studies that prove your assertions correct.
Okay? This is how an exchange of ideas is supposed to work.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 15, 2016, 07:19:49 PM
What's so fascinating is how much you lack in self-awareness. Far from "going with emotion", my opinions are based on empirical studies (see Robert Pape)
Doesn't evidence have to be corroberated to be empirical? Who corroberated Pape? People who read Pape? Isn't that how we got cold fusion?
Quote
, expert testimony (see former CIA Bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer)
Did he read Pape? Bet he did.
He's such an expert at Bin Laden that Bin Laden still wasn't captured when he left the CIA in 2004. Some expert!
Quote
and a great deal of reading on both history and political philosophy. I'm quite sure I've posted more articles, peer-reviewed studies, lectures by experts and hard data points than everyone else on this forum combined. And not one of the links and sources I've used to defend my positions has been even addressed.
Translation: I've posted on a lot of sites that agree with my point of view
Quote
You may not agree with my views, but you can't in good faith claim that my views are based on "emotion" and that I'm ignoring facts. I'm the one who has been attempting to provide hard evidence for my views, while you are relying on anecdotes and buzzwords.
Providing hard evidence based on people like Pape and Scheuer who rely on anecdotes and buzzwords.
Quote
If you ever actually provide a link to an article by an actual journalist that corroborates your claims, or to a peer-reviewed study of any kind, I WILL read it and critique it fully. This is what I usually try to do.
Translation: I'll tell you your links are bull, because only Pape, Scheuer, and their minions know the facts.
Quote
Let me ask an honest question. Have any of you actually clicked on any the links I've posted, watched any of the YouTube videos or looked at any of the PDF files and research papers I've cited?
An honest question deserves an honest question? Have you considered any of the answers you gotten? Have you even thought about what others have said, rather than reciting what you've been told? Didn't think so, I can tell by the lenth of your post you just spew talking points on command.
Quote
Why don't you go back to my last post where I posted several links and respond to my specific claims? I will reciprocate if you provide me with anything that you can find to support your positions.
Why don't you consider your being conned?
Quote
What I've heard from y'all is that you don't trust articles, empirical studies and journalism
You mean the same articles, empiricals studies, and journalism that tells us global warming causes terrorism and all terrorist need is jobs? Yah, lot to trust there.
Quote
and you're telling me that in lieu of this your personal experience and anecdotal experiences in foreign lands and in the military are an adequate substitute.
Isn't that what your telling us? Pape and Scheuer experiences trump everyone elses
Quote
One person even said "People like Pape should be listening to me and people like me" (paraphrase), which rather incredibly implies that he hasn't spoken to people who hold your views.
And the empirical evidence of that is where?
Quote
The claim is that actual hard science can be substituted for anecdotal experience. I am telling you that this is absolutely false. You may feel one way about the nature of Islam as a religion, about terrorism and the motivations for terrorist attacks but you have to yield to hard science and exhaustive studies which, frankly, prove your central claims completely wrong.
No the claim is anyone who blames this country for the problems of another country is full of it.
Quote
I've rarely seen such substance-less posts on a forum. Why not try this again?
You all can go back to the previous page and disprove what I claimed, read the links I posted and explain why this evidence is not correct and why my arguments are fallacious.
Then you can post some links to articles and empirical studies that prove your assertions correct.
Okay? This is how an exchange of ideas is supposed to work.
You mean substance less because they don't agree with your point of view.
Exchange of ideas? So far we've presented our point of view which you promptly ignore and continue posting your point of view.
Why don't you go back over the past few pages and disprove what others have resonded to you?
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 15, 2016, 07:19:49 PM
What's so fascinating is how much you lack in self-awareness.
Pretty much what we think of you. You sure use a lot of words to say the same thing over and over. You think the U.S. is to blame for terrorist acts against it. We get it. You think the blood of our victims is on our hands. We get it. You have your savior pape who reinforces your beliefs and gives you self-righteousness. We get it. You ignore every view point presented and all the facts that were presented because you do not agree with them. We get it. We have pretty much heard everything you have and we get it. It is you who does not get it.
Quote from: s3779m on October 16, 2016, 02:45:56 AM
Pretty much what we think of you. You sure use a lot of words to say the same thing over and over. You think the U.S. is to blame for terrorist acts against it. We get it. You think the blood of our victims is on our hands. We get it. You have your savior pape who reinforces your beliefs and gives you self-righteousness. We get it. You ignore every view point presented and all the facts that were presented because you do not agree with them. We get it. We have pretty much heard everything you have and we get it. It is you who does not get it.
He's working on the same intellectual level that gun free zones are effective.
No reasoning involved, solely based on emotional conjecture.
Quote from: jrodefeld on October 15, 2016, 07:19:49 PM
1.)What's so fascinating is how much you lack in self-awareness. Far from "going with emotion", my opinions are based on empirical studies (see Robert Pape), expert testimony (see former CIA Bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer) and a great deal of reading on both history and political philosophy.
2.)You may not agree with my views, but you can't in good faith claim that my views are based on "emotion" and that I'm ignoring facts.
3.)Let me ask an honest question. Have any of you actually clicked on any the links I've posted, watched any of the YouTube videos or looked at any of the PDF files and research papers I've cited?
4.)Why don't you go back to my last post where I posted several links and respond to my specific claims? I will reciprocate if you provide me with anything that you can find to support your positions.
5.)What I've heard from y'all is that you don't trust articles, empirical studies and journalism and you're telling me that in lieu of this your personal experience and anecdotal experiences in foreign lands and in the military are an adequate substitute.
6.)One person even said "People like Pape should be listening to me and people like me" (paraphrase), which rather incredibly implies that he hasn't spoken to people who hold your views.
7.)The claim is that actual hard science can be substituted for anecdotal experience. I am telling you that this is absolutely false. You may feel one way about the nature of Islam as a religion, about terrorism and the motivations for terrorist attacks but you have to yield to hard science and exhaustive studies which, frankly, prove your central claims completely wrong.
8.)I've rarely seen such substance-less posts on a forum. Why not try this again?
9.) You all can go back to the previous page and disprove what I claimed, read the links I posted and explain why this evidence is not correct and why my arguments are fallacious. Then you can post some links to articles and empirical studies that prove your assertions correct.
10.)Okay? This is how an exchange of ideas is supposed to work.
1. How can you say I lack self awareness when my opinions are formed by my TRAINING at the hands of REAL experts , some of the best in the world in their field, from the US Military, to the FBI to various departmental experts and LAWYERS. I have a degree in criminology, by my years and years experience as a Major crimes Investigator in Washington DC, a private security consultant who worked with and trained Police, Military and private security in 8 different countries. I learned a great deal about other cultures and peoples from my counterparts. I am a court certified EXPERT in several Law Enforcement related disciplines and have testified thus as a sworn officer and a private security operative.
2. Your constant pleading to be held relevant betrays your emotions, you come across as angry and frustrated. You are stubborn to the point of narrow mindedness by your total acceptance of Pape and the rest of the desk bound battalion of armchair experts, who quite frankly are laughed at by the "boots on the ground" types. And I'm sure Pape considers persons like myself to be uneducated, knuckle dragging,crude, rather violent, cretins or pests. More of a cause of the problem than a solution.
3. Honest answer,
yes I have, I found him to be rather one dementional. Its all the US fault etc etc. Just an aside, I wonder if Obamao forms his opinion from listening to Pape or if Pape echo's Obamao's opinion because it would be economically/politically advantageous to Pape.... :popcorn:
4. Why? you can't accept my word and dismiss my expertise that others have often PAID and PAID well for. I have continually cited
fact and what Judges would call "judicial notice" Which is a point of law or fact that doesn't have to be proven. The point about Ben Laudin and Al Q'ieda killing more muslims than the US ever did is just one of them. You want me to publish a link to every terrorist attack that takes place in Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan Iraq, Indonesia, The Philippines etc etc in which Muslims are killed by other Muslims? No, you are fond of doing research and base all on what you read and study....get up off your ass and do it, you might learn something.
5. Do you understand what the hell you are even talking about? What do you think those "emperical studies" "articles" etc etc are based on?????....THEY ARE BASED ON REPORTS FROM SUCH AS MYSELF. Someone, rather a TEAM of FIELD EXPERTS who have processed the crime scene, interviewed witnesses, suspects and gathered the FACTS or sat up for 24 hours straight listening to a wire tap or Phone intercept from the bad guys themselves. Or sat in an interview room across from some Psychopathic lunatic and tried to deduce fact from Lie, half truth and complete fabrication then comprised it all in a report that the omnipotent Pape reads and FORMS AND OPINION ABOUT.
6
. I said that, read the aforementioned again a few times, it might sink in.
7. Read number five yet again. Do you understand that conducting an investigation and gathering evidence/intelligence IS a SCIENCE all in itself? You dismiss EVIDENCE and FACTS gathered by those investigative/intelligence gathering PROFESSIONALS in favor of a DISTANCED
third party such as Pape et al. When you do so you lack credibility in any rational though process.
8. Try what again? convincing your closed mind that there is something in this world besides the All Knowing Pape?
9. You can not disclaim an opinion by an "expert" its an opinion, be it Pape's or mine. Hold that thought for a few paragraph's ahead when I have a question for you, oh Champion of Pape.
10. There is no
exchange of idea's here, you haven't addressed half the things I brought up or you out right refuted them by going back again to your sources I get tired of typing their names.
Now before we play 20 question any further. In one of my posts I think I said it was not so much Pape's Opinion we/I disagreed with but rather his suggested solution to the problem. A 'solution" you seem to echo in your posts about Terrorism, A subdued Military or your eagerness for a Anarchal society and Legalizing drugs will make all the problems associated with it, especially the bad guys who control it, go away.
Now I got a Question for you
I WANT AN ANSWER FOR.... Mr 'exchange of Ideas'
1 a. What Evidence DO YOU PRESENT to substantiate your belief that a cessation of hostilities toward Radical Muslim terrorists and complete withdrawal from their lands by our Military and complete isolation from Islamic affairs worldwide
will cease terrorist attacks against the US?....Show me the facts that this will make them stop. Show me how this will prevent RADICAL ISLAM's
STATED GOAL of Uniting the World Under Islam, by any means necessary.
Sorry Billy, but jrodefeld has left the building with a little help.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M46ed3cfbfaf3a2185e37b6e4d412d930o0%26amp%3Bpid%3D15.1&hash=8a545cd8f6fbff33dd8ec0efab58ba0333753d08)
Quote from: s3779m on October 16, 2016, 02:45:56 AM
Pretty much what we think of you. You sure use a lot of words to say the same thing over and over. You think the U.S. is to blame for terrorist acts against it. We get it. You think the blood of our victims is on our hands. We get it. You have your savior pape who reinforces your beliefs and gives you self-righteousness. We get it. You ignore every view point presented and all the facts that were presented because you do not agree with them. We get it. We have pretty much heard everything you have and we get it. It is you who does not get it.
Quote from: walkstall on October 16, 2016, 07:13:43 PM
Sorry Billy, but jrodefeld has left the building with a little help.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M46ed3cfbfaf3a2185e37b6e4d412d930o0%26amp%3Bpid%3D15.1&hash=8a545cd8f6fbff33dd8ec0efab58ba0333753d08)
Splendid!
Quote from: quiller on October 17, 2016, 04:05:37 AM
Splendid!
Like most trolls he posted by internet proxy.
Quote from: walkstall on October 17, 2016, 04:10:06 AM
Like most trolls he posted by internet proxy.
...And then cut and pasted two entire editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica (and all its supplements). If he were a cow the manure-sweepers would be busy until 2035 A.D.
Quote from: quiller on October 17, 2016, 04:16:08 AM
...And then cut and pasted two entire editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica (and all its supplements). If he were a cow the manure-sweepers would be busy until 2035 A.D.
I know some farmers that could use him next Spring.
Quote from: walkstall on October 16, 2016, 07:13:43 PM
Sorry Billy, but jrodefeld has left the building with a little help.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M46ed3cfbfaf3a2185e37b6e4d412d930o0%26amp%3Bpid%3D15.1&hash=8a545cd8f6fbff33dd8ec0efab58ba0333753d08)
Sighhhhhh...I enjoyed sharpening my claws......I'm sure another clone will be along shortly.