Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Obama La Douce
You have literally no idea what's going on in Syria or what we're doing. You're seriously asking me if I think we should bomb them while we fund and arm them?
I'd ask why we're messing with Syria at all, but you're so clueless as to what's going on in the region that it'd be a pointless venture.
I say we give Turkey, Jordan and Israel permission to partition Syria between themselves. It would be a strategic victory in the region at little cost, and it would deprive Russia and Iran of a key ally.
But unfortunately, that will never happen because Obama cares more about "convincing" other nations that he's a nice guy rather than do what's in America's best interest.
>>I'd ask why we're messing with Syria at all, but you're so clueless as to what's going on in the region that it'd be a pointless venture.<<
I'll take that as a no. "No, we should not fight Al Qaeda in Syria. Al Qaeda is no threat to us."
Would that be right?
Of course you'll continue to squirm, and argue - at the same time - that there are no dangerous terrorists groups justifying the use of force overseas-- and -- that we are responsible for the existence of dangerous terrorists.
Of course you'll continue to squirm, and argue - at the same time - that there are no dangerous terrorists groups justifying the use of force overseas-- and -- that we are responsible for the existence of dangerous terrorists.
Btw, quote tags now work.
The Yell, you have repeatedly ignored the fact that we're arming and funding Al Qaeda in Syria. I take it that you obviously support this aid to Al Qaeda, as you have not once voiced disagreement with current government policy and actions.
You support funding and arming Al Qaeda. I support stopping giving them excuses to involve themselves with us in any way.
Acknowledging that we oppress people in the region--have for decades and continue to to this day--is not claiming "responsibility" for all of those actions claimed in reprisal. Nor is it claimed justification for those acts.
It is you squirming and refusing to acknowledge the facts, instead repeatedly employing such fallacious logic to accuse me of holding contradictory positions. You're accusing me of being unwilling to combat America's enemies, because I have not stated a desire to bomb Al Qaeda in Syria. You accuse me of this while ignoring the fact that our government--and the money taxed out of us--is being used to fund and arm Al Qaeda.
I'm pretty sure funding and arming them is more supportive than "not giving a damn because they're barbarians on the other side of the globe." It's you supporting them. You're not objecting to current government support for them. You're asking me a nonsensical question about bombing them, which isn't remotely within the realm of possibility.
You might as well ask me if I support bombing alien Mars colonies because they're a threat to us. The answer to that question would similarly be entirely theoretical and completely meaningless as to the wisdom of our current foreign policy and your support of it--though, admittedly, you have no idea what our current policies and actions are, you still defend them.
Kemp: If Congress passed a bill saying "Death to Iranians" would it be a declaration of war? What about "The President is allowed to kill as many Iranians as neccessary to make them end their nuclear program". Is that a war declaration? What about a "The President is authorized to annex and protect any lands in the nation of Iran as he see's fit and neccessary?
Because there's ANY possibility of anything REMOTELY like that happening.
I don't see the value of discussing fairy tales on this forum. Care to address what's actually happening and how current government actions, which you have voiced absolutely no objection to, are making things worse?
The Yell, you have repeatedly ignored the fact that we're arming and funding Al Qaeda in Syria. I take it that you obviously support this aid to Al Qaeda, as you have not once voiced disagreement with current government policy and actions.
Nope. I said to bomb them with gas, back on page 2.
You're still dancing around the question. Apparently Al Qaeda is no threat to us anywhere. We shouldn't attack Al Qaeda anywhere. Syria. Yemen. Afghanistan.
Again I'm asking you for a concrete example of what should be done, and you can't even consider it. You're trapped staring at America's navel. You can't begin to complain about foreign terrorists.
Should we bomb Al Qaeda in Syria? Yes or No? Without any talk of what we ARE doing. Should we bomb Al Qaeda in Syria? Yes or No?
Why should we do anything in Syria? Why is it any of our business? Are you implying we should bomb anyone in Syria? I'm open to considering your argument, if you can make one.
By asking if we should BOMB people we're currently FUNDING and ARMING, you're implying that you have a problem with what we're doing right now. Why not voice that opinion? What are you afraid of?
I don't see what's so contradictory about fighting mercenaries when they fight you, or in funding them when they fight for you.
How is anyone in Syria fighting "for" us? What are we getting out of it? What are our interests in the region? In that nation? What evidence do we have that what replaces Assad will be better than Assad?
I love all these completely unsubstantiated and unexplained claims, as if you've never even thought about what you're talking about. You make the massive assumption that the forces we're funding and arming in Syria are somehow fighting for us. But you don't provide even a hint of an idea that there's any evidence of this whatsoever, or benefit to us at all. Do you have a basis for that claim?
Sure, PMCs (Private Military Corporations) can be efficient and get things done. But Syrian rebel forces are not PMCs. Some of the most powerful and motivated of them are religious fanatics. And they're certainly not fighting for US interests.
These are matters of life and death. And every apathetic and ignorant American is guilty when our nation does wrong in the world. Our tax dollars, the products of our labor, are being used to kill human beings. You don't even think about it enough to provide a coherent explanation of your support for this murder?
People who take the trouble to brand themselves "Al Qaeda" are asking for it, just as if they go and embrace the swastika.
Which fails to respond to anything I said or answer a single one of my many questions.
It's not an official name. Many of the people we refer to with that name don't use it or associate with it in any way. Your statement is meaningless and incoherent.
Right, I've moved right past your complaining about American policy to ask you WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES.
Your ideal outcomes help define the use and sense of your complaints.
Not an official name? Dude. They have a flag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JackHensley.PNG
What they gotta have a copyright? They gotta register and pay taxes as a franchise? They gotta have a commissioner that sanctions them for ethical violations? Then we can expect that groups that hoist the black flag of Al Qaeda are tied into each other?
Your objections are answered by a call for global war against extremist population centers, in defiance of the 4th Geneva Convention, with weapons of mass destruction, until they collapse and form something harmless. Works when its tried. that's my position and I oppose anything short of that. Such as the current administrations aid program. capece?
Given the options of stopping your country's oppression of various peoples around the globe and genocide, you choose genocide. Because, if you can't be a good sheep and demand that the same globalists who lord over your life lord over theirs, then they shouldn't be alive!
Why don't we try my idea of "stopping our funding of authoritarian regimes and the oppression of people" first before we try genocide? What do we have to lose? We could always choose genocide later if we decided we gave a damn what Syrians do in Syria.
You refuse to even acknowledge American policy or actions in the region. You know this isn't about threats to the USA, just as Saddam and Qaddafi weren't. (They wanted to stop using the dollar to sell oil) So you ramble and ramble. Because you were told these wars are for America, and that's all you need to be told.
If you want to bomb Al Qaeda in Syria, you disagree with American policy a lot more than you do my position of "GTFO of Syria." Strange that you voice your disagreement with irrelevant me a whole lot and the real actions of the American government not at all, given that this is a politics forum.
You refuse to even acknowledge American policy or actions in the region. You know this isn't about threats to the USA, just as Saddam and Qaddafi weren't.
I know exactly the opposite.
Did the CIA fake the Daniel Pearl video? Or the Mumbai bombings? Or the bombings of the Khobar Towers?
(They wanted to stop using the dollar to sell oil)
Newsflash: Big Business wants to inflate the dollar to nothing. They're going to secure a set % of GDP in "stimulus" and bailouts regardless of the value of the dollar. They openly say we can do so because the rest of the human race is too stupid to stop buying American bonds. Bloomberg said it last week, we have an infinite money supply. They mean the US govt does, and they're going to be paid directly by the govt because they're too big to fail. OPEC screwed up by not using inflation as a weapon wehn the US govt gave a damn aobut inflation of the dollar. Too late now. Been too late since Bush got elected in 1988.
So you ramble and ramble. Because you were told these wars are for America, and that's all you need to be told.
Maybe you're just dumb. I mean, I tell you right out I want to bomb on extremist populations til they submit - I estimate 33% of military age males as casualties will do it, based on the collapse of the Central Powers / Axis / British Empire after 2 world wars. I tell you that flat out, and you're still talking about what I really ought to want. Why would I trade the security of war crimes for a gamble? Why would I do that? And yet, with that in front of us, I'm still agog you can't find Al Waldo wearing his stocking cap and his black jihad flag. My bad.
Haha you know exactly the opposite... of the truth. Bush and Obama, and the international banks which own them, are honest and honorable people, you argue! You're a sucker, I argue.
Like your simplistic understanding of monetary policy. You presume their sole goal is hyperinflation, as if they don't benefit from the dollar being the international reserve currency, and dominant currency of the oil trade, in the mean time.
If the dollar collapses now, their political aspirations of complete authoritarian control and the complete ruin of American liberty are threatened. They're not ready for hyperinflation yet. Threats to their political aspirations of increased power have coincidentally been squashed with the American military. But you're sure that everyone they say is a threat was a threat! It's not like they're heartless satanists who've killed tens of thousands of Americans with experiments over the past century. They wouldn't do that! They bring hope and change! Yes we can! Gov'mint loves us! I got me a free phone!
I'm still waiting for you to answer simple questions like "Why should we care?" Considering that such simple questions are beyond you, that you pretend to have made a more substantial case is as laughable as your confusion regarding our support for Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria.
Answers you reject are answers. This is not "12 Angry Men" where the confused guy gets to tell other people "NO! Your answers aren't good enough!"
You have been answered: every group that flies the black flag of jihad threatens the United States itself and everything under our flag abroad, and lots of other people who don't consider themselves appropriately Muslim.
That's the answer.
The idea I cannot call for the United States to bomb on people that the current Administration sends aid to is laughable. It's silly. The US promised to make affordable wheat sales to the USSR for the last 20 years of the Cold War; was that something to use to shut Reagan down? "You can't build Star Wars -- Carter signed SALT II!!" Obviously Reagan came forward to repudiate the incumbent.
Kill them til they give up. We did it to Japan and Germany. It works when its tried. That a subsequent generation of lawyer-politicians call it "war crimes" bothers me not at all. They can write nasty books about it.
WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
Japan and Germany were nations. They had leaders who could surrender. I can respect that you honestly believe we should bomb and invade a dozen nations across the globe, and then dozens more as supposed jihadists relocate. But I can't respect that as anything less than an insane position held by someone who's never going to have to fight, has no children who will be called on to fight, and who literally just doesn't care what effect this will have on the future of America as compared to (less insane) alternatives.
What you propose is endless war against groups we often fund--the point not being blame but that we've enabled them to be the supposed threats you claim that they are. They were all harmless without our aid. Yet you aren't satisfied ceasing our aid and ceasing arming and enabling them to engage in military action. You want endless war, not an end to the supposed threat!
It doesn't matter to you that our funding has enabled every one of these groups you're afraid of to achieve anything (which still hasn't been a threat to us). It doesn't matter to you that neither Saddam nor Bin Laden (nor any of the Mujahideen) nor Qaddafi were anything without our funding and little even with it. Your master shouted at someone, so you bark! You don't care if he's shouting at someone he payed to be there and who he let in the gate.
You're the gullible posterchild of globalist (authoritarian) victory. You claim to hold all of these Conservative positions which are in stark contrast to Obama, Clinton, Carter, etc. Yet when it comes down to it, you support precisely what they want you to. You squabble over abortion and gay "marriage" while supporting their expansion of power and their bankrupting your nation in the process.
If you truly believe that everyone on the other side of the globe who dislikes America's foreign policy "threatens the United States itself," you're far more insecure about America than I ever would have guessed. And a hypocrite, considering that you surely supported America's revolution against British tyranny, yet you say nothing when America is far more tyrannical in many nations today.
What you propose is endless war against groups we often fund--the point not being blame but that we've enabled them to be the supposed threats you claim that they are. They were all harmless without our aid.
Who told you that?
I doubt you spoke with Syrian and Afghan and Libyan jihadists.
So who told you that?
You whine that I bark when my master shouts, but, who told you there was no threat without our aid?
BTW I said it would clearly end.
You're the gullible posterchild of globalist (authoritarian) victory. You claim to hold all of these Conservative positions which are in stark contrast to Obama, Clinton, Carter, etc. Yet when it comes down to it, you support precisely what they want you to.
Didn't know they supported attacks on jihadist populations until they're reduced to surrender.
I thought they were about sending aid, and wimpy attacks against this one and that one.
But I can't respect that as anything less than an insane position held by someone who's never going to have to fight, has no children who will be called on to fight, and who literally just doesn't care what effect this will have on the future of America as compared to (less insane) alternatives.
What fighting? I called for the delivery of WMD to population centers.
Oh noes! I forsee a future where we win! Ohh..noooooo
If you truly believe that everyone on the other side of the globe who dislikes America's foreign policy "threatens the United States itself
Everyone who dislikes America - its domestic culture as well as its foriegn policy - to raise the black flag of jihad and joins with Al Qaeda, is what I said.
Who told me that Syria and Iraq aren't waging war on us, even with the increased capacity of our funding?
...The lack of a single attack on us is evidence of this?
You're alleging that there are all these nations at war with us, yet they're harmless to us and impact us in absolutely no way whatsoever, DESPITE the fact that we've given them training and millions of dollars to make them more capable. You're a complete crack pot. You have absolutely no basis for your hysteria.
You're ranting about literally killing 90% of everyone in northern Africa and Southwest Asia. Please provide the evidence that this is necessary and that they're going to invade or otherwise attack the US mainland. Now you've got me scared too! Why am I scared, again?
Ohnoes there are conservative Muslims on the other side of the globe who are disgusted by Hustler magazine. And they're not happy that the same trashy civilization that brings them Hustler also oppresses them by funding dictators in the region. Clearly we need to nuke the region. I can see no alternative! You've convinced me of the logic and righteousness of your position.
Man, epic fight of snark vs troll.
Wow.
Now to toss a zinger in
Kemp where do you put a line in the sand?
10 Americans?
100 Americans?
1000? 10,000? 100,000?
What about allied lives?
What about property damages tied in with casualties... what is your line for that?
Try, for once, to be straight with your answer and not filibuster.
I think Kemp is saying that aggressively fighting terrorists abroad fails to solve the problem. The problem is that the U.S. government has been funding, training and arming terrorist organizations to achieve minor political victories, only to have them later turn on us. So as long as we continue to support terrorist organizations, we will never win the war on terror.
And, I suppose he believes that fighting the terrorists makes the problem worse, or that ceasing our meddling would be sufficient.
I put the line somewhere above 0, Einstein.
The coming financial collapse this aggression quickens and worsens is going to claim a lot more than 0 lives, and harm hundreds of millions. I noticed that you didn't account for this, let alone imagine the broadest, vaguest comparison.
You haven't accounted for the harm these costs incur upon our nation at all, let alone judged them to be beneficial for the gain they get us. Hell, you can't even substantiate any gains from these bases and wars whatsoever. Nobody in Libya attacked us in decades before the bombing, and nobody has bombed us sin... Oh, wait. More Americans died to Libyans SINCE the bombing than in the 20 years preceding it. I can see why it's so hard for you to show results of the aggression you favor supposedly to protect us.
I'm the most aggressive and supportive of killing foreign barbarians to protect Americans that anyone can be.
All I'm saying is that, so long as we're propping up dictators we're actively oppressing peoples across the globe--something our ancestors rightfully killed and died to fight. So long as we're oppressing people we're hypocrites. So long as we're an active source of tyranny in the world, our noses aren't clean, and we don't argue from any sort of position of absolute moral authority.
All I'm saying is that "national defense" is not an excuse to enact the policies a stupid 12 year old could improve upon. It's not an excuse to flail about like a blind idiot and pretend that's defending us. It's not an excuse to blindly follow the idiots the American people elect.
I'm just saying that we should get our noses clean, to put it ridiculously lightly, before we pretend to have the moral authority to do anything we please. That's not to claim any acts of others are justified, it's just a philosophical statement that we should know better, and that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the uneducated barbarians you want to wipe from the Earth.
Aren't you guys Christians? One of Hosea's (minor prophet, Old Testament) biggest messages to Israel was that they should know better. That all of their neighbors were doing horrible things didn't somehow make Israel perfect--didn't mean that Israel should have overlooked and excused its own moral failings.
Message today? Others' moral failures is no excuse for us to be lazy and sloppy logically or morally. Yes, our society is far superior to virtually all in the Middle East in most ways. That's no excuse to fund dictators so that we can place military bases and bomb anyone who threatens to trade oil with gold-backed currency rather than the dollar. That's no excuse to refuse to rationally assess the success of actions taken supposedly to protect Americans and "American" interests (which are usually the interests of international banks, not the American people).
That's what you're doing, ignoring the content of my messages and arguments, instead accusing me of "blaming" us for this or that.
And, while we clean up our act, I think we need a much more deliberate examination of the actions taken and actions available to combat the threat of foreign terrorism. How can you combat it while your nation often funds it and trains terrorists? You can't. So you stop funding it. Then you thoroughly examine what's left and how you can combat that.
Newsflash: There is not that much left. This is a fact, as testified to by every possible mathematical and scientific measure conceivable to man.
Justinian I, that's somewhat correct, but I don't think there's anything near so simple as an "us" and "them" of politics, aggression, and oppression in the Middle East, and any such assessments are vastly oversimplified.
I don't think anyone America's funded has ever "turned" on us. The elite of the globe, international banking elite rich beyond our wildest imaginations with control over trillions of dollars, absolutely love everything that every terrorist group has ever done. They absolutely love the military industrial complex; it enriches them and gives them the means to topple anyone who threatens their dominion over and profiting from everything on the globe.
A dictator we've been funding for decades plans to trade oil for a new gold-backed currency, not the US dollar? Suddenly he's a terrorist-supporting threat to America and needs to be invaded, or extremist rebels (just as bad as the current authoritarian) must be supported to replace him! I suppose dictators "turned" on the globalist elite, but not the American people.
What have we gotten out of Invading Iraq, Afghanistan, or bombing Libya? Absolutely nothing, and even worse sentiments of the peoples of the region. I don't really care what anybody thinks (they tend to be as ignorant as the average Amerikan), but I think when we get nothing out of actions which cost trillions and thousands of American lives, it's pretty [cluckin'] stupid not to stop those actions and fire and jail everyone who pushed them on the American sheeple.
The globalist elite who seek to be more of slave-masters over us than they already are absolutely love the psychological and cultural impact of things like the TSA groping our wives, mothers, and children at airports just to visit the wife's family for her birthday. They love our subjugation by "authority" personnel who used to be public servants.
The US people used to be sovereign. But they're losing more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more power to those who would oppress them.
Google is a quasi-government organization which logs everything it can about you and your actions.
Retailers log everything they can about your purchases and behavior, and they add extra charges if you don't sign up for their tracking program.
We're pushed more and more to purchase with plastic, because it allows for more tracking and surcharges on every transaction of our lives. Cash still accounts for 70-80% of transactions, but you wouldn't guess this from the focus on pushing more credit and debit card usage on us.
The US military is doing exercises in US towns and cities. On targets representing pregnant women and old men not even aiming firearms at them. SWAT teams are used more and more often to harass and subjugate people for misdemeanors.
So yeah, I see a little more to it than "a necessary measure to protect us" when the elite subjugate us, kill people, and get our soldiers killed for absolutely no gain.
I think a person has to be one hell of an ignorant sheep, completely incapable of independent thought, to be brainwashed enough to believe that human nature has magically changed in the past few years.
History is literally filled with tyrants seeking more power over the people--who they literally always view as livestock not deserving of dignity, let alone rights and freedom--and seeking to take more of the products of people's labor.
It is my opinion that willful ignorance of this move toward subjugation and slavery is the greatest evil of our day. Tyrants with money and power have always sought more of both. But people were generally unhappy with this, and America used to represent a monumentally successful rebellion against such tyranny.
Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 especially, we've certainly fallen a great deal from this ideal. In recent years, more rapidly than average. The American people are subjugated (government authority) and emasculated (government authority and chemicals in foods), prepared for even greater robbery and slavery.
When something is claimed to be for security, conveniently subjugates the American people, and doesn't even achieve anything of the security which it's claimed to be for, I think everyone who buys the claimed purpose of the action is a damned fool and a rotten human being.
Edit: I'm sorry for all the trolling and filibustering, Einstein. I'll try, in the future, to discuss ideas more. I'm trying my best to achieve your level of intellectual and social development, but I'm just not as smart or righteous as you.
I'm just saying that we should get our noses clean, to put it ridiculously lightly, before we pretend to have the moral authority to do anything we please. That's not to claim any acts of others are justified, it's just a philosophical statement that we should know better, and that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the uneducated barbarians you want to wipe from the Earth.
The difference between totally ignoring what terrorist jihadis have been and are up to, to blame America, and your program, is so narrow I fail to see it.
Self defense creates the moral authority. Pop, bing, fast as you can say "knife".
Imperial Forum → Politics → Obama La Douce
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.