US out

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Dec 27, 2018.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    National sovereignty means that we don't get to make decisions for other countries. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".
     
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    spidergoat said:
    Sometimes we support terrorists who fight other terrorists.
    which does not make it right

    ...........................
    Helluva defense for a gang rapist
    You raped that woman...
    So did everyone else
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    this is a rather delusional view of american history and a whitewashing of it. we've invaded quite a few places unjustly and used special forces and supported rebellions in many others. being ok with american imperialism doesn't mean it doesn't exist

    you don't have a point. You have lies, misrepresentations, and bullshit.



    so rome wasn't european good to know.
    never said they were. Do you have anything other than strawman arguments.

    funny how you bring Iran into when we started the american iranian conflict and it US allies saudi arabia and Israel that do the most meddling in other foreign affairs. also Iraq is a made up country for the most part cobbled together by european powers.



    again with the muslims hate for the freedom shit. this is why people like you will never solve the terrorism problem you don't understand it. actually American occupying afghanistan is exactly what they wanted. they wanted an invasion and occupation to use as a means to get people to rise up against western powers. their ideology is that there is a western desire to destroy muslim civilization in their minds their defending the islamic world from our aggression.



    i believe it was Sun Tzu who said doing what your enemy wants is stupid. Your line of thinking is what helps terrorists recruit.
    well preferentionally i'd prefer not to act like dicks and get them started in the first place but baring that i'd prefer tactics that work. military invasions don't do shit to stop terrorism.



    no its shear dumb luck it hit 3000. it was a combination of things that allowed it to get that high. and the death toll was never speculated to clear 20k. shit to get even close to that every person in the world trade center would have had to stay in the buildings
    nope but nice strawman. I believe in police work and diplomacy the 2 things that have a proven track record of stopping terrorism.



    considering how often with Us military adventures its for business interests providing the driving force yes. the Us has invaded and annexxed territory before because of business interests(Hawaii) over thrown democratically elected governments to get access to resources(Iran and south and central america) hell what was the first things the US military protected in Iraq the oil fields.
    thats just it most of them don't hate americans they hate our government because it treats them as pawns.



    Russia is still the main supplier of arms. and as much as i hate russia and think their violent military aggressive pricks this is bullshit. estimates range for number of people killed because of our actions form between 2 and 4 million. even the most aggressive estimates for muslims killed by russia get into the range.



    there is a difference between taking control during ware and annexing it. and again the laws of war prevent occupying territory and moving your population into it. that doesn't make you a savy person beating terrorism. it makes you a war criminal.
    No war crimes aren't going to stop terrorism. if you think they are, your objectively an idiot. and again nice strawman. since i oppose the committing of war crimes i'm soft on terrorism. again just because im not a bloodthirsty warmonger doesn't mean i wish to do nothing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    continued
    no we won't. not if you know we act intelligently instead of assholes.
    no i'm not a racist fucking idiot. considering most of the terrorists gho do get in the country weren't from those countries i don't see the point. if you really wanted to stop it you'd prevent saudis from getting in but we wont do that.

    i suggest you learn some history.
    your own prejudices aren't a substitute for real history. the afghans had over 10 different empires rule it by the time the mongols invaded(thats alot) also they converted to islam before the mongol invasion and that was because a Khwarezmian governer insulted and abused mongol diplomats.
    they didn't.
    im not thats your strawman argument in favor of warcrimes. unlike you i don't think war crimes and warfare solves these problems.



    im not thats your delusional fantasy in that its warcrimes or nothing
    i don't know its your strawman argument you answer it.

    so W is a war criminal already knew that

    bullshit. its seems to be the only resort you want to use.
    last time checked we invaded them not the other way around. we never even tried diplomacy
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Makes it more wrong - for us.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    There are conditions in which a country looses this right. And I find your moral equivalency to be abhorrent. The freedom to oppress under religious fundamentalist rule doesn't exist.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Calling me a racist is pretty fucking low.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Loses.
    And that does not grant arbitrary rights to any other country. Consider the rights Iran would have regarding Israel, Iraq, or the US.

    Consider, if the US is justified in what it has done to the people of Afghanistan, what Nicaragua would be justified in doing to the people of the US, - whose democratically elected government provided the trainers, financiers, weapons suppliers, coordinators, and instigators, of a terrorist campaign against the entire country that makes 9/11 (an operation only partly organized in Afghanistan, by a small cadre of foreign Arabs that most Afghans had nothing to do with) look like a pinprick.

    Suppose abused Nicaraguans coordinated their vengeance and self defense, their anti-terrorist efforts, with Colombia, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, and, yes, Mexico?
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2019
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    It's "loses" not "looses". No, there aren't "conditions" and what you find abhorrent is irrelevant. There aren't universal "rules".
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Oh, I want to agree with you on that, but.............

    Example: You and your family live next to a family of child abusers and law breakers.
    The Law says you cannot interfere with "internal family affairs"of your neighbors on their own property.

    You can call Law enforcement, who may enforce "local" laws. But if there is no jurisdiction, what do you do. Nothing?

    Can there be times in human events that are morally important enough to go to war over as a pre-emptive form of self-defense?

    It is a strategy employed by the law-breakers! You protest, you die.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Sure.
    The US has not been faced with any such times, at least not since WWII.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    You may be right, but can we afford NOT to take pre-emptive action when faced with a possible future existential threat?
    Are there no more Stalins or Hitlers or modern Genghis Khans? Seems to me there are quite a few blood feuds and power feuds in the world. Look at the damage such individuals inflicted. And it's now potentially Nuclear or Chemical!
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    Is Iran bothering you in any way? They want nuclear weapons just like Israel (India, Pakistan)and just like we have.

    If they don't like our morals, should they preemptively go to war with us?
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    9/11
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    They might, no? When Allah commands, the muslims obey.
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    So far, we seem like the only ones going to war. Trump probably does look any more impressive as a lead than some other leaders do to us.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    But for all the wrong reasons.
     
  21. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Like I said, the US hasn't been in any major wars in the last 50 years other than Iraq and Vietnam, every other significant conflict in which the US was directly engaged involved protecting American homeland security and the security of its allies, or putting a stop to bloodshed as in Bosnia and Serbia. To be fair, I'm not counting incidents in which a few hundred died, where there may not have been an intent to protect American security or human rights, as such incidents would make for a quiet week in the Chinese or Russian countryside. I'm not aware of any land grabs or resource grabs other than the attempted exploitation of cheap Iraqi oil during the US occupation, and perhaps you might count temporary control of the Panama canal. By the numbers, the US has not been the globe's biggest killer. Perhaps you put more focus on the US because of the range over which it projects its power, but you ignore all the people massacred internally and in the near-abroad by China, Russia, the USSR and their various allies. Murder is murder, Hans don't have a natural right to exterminate Uyghurs just because they've historically shared a country.

    Both countries were staging border provocations. I agree that Saddam was the bigger aggressor and did the most to initiate a conflict, but Iran had plenty of opportunities to end the conflict on vastly favourable terms over a 6 year period after the Iraqi retreat and instead chose to seek total domination of Iraq. Both sides also committed mass assaults against civilian targets. Countries like Israel have frequently faced unprovoked attacks originating from foreign countries such as Lebanon and Syria which were not suffering from occupation at the time, but that's never given them carte blanche in the eyes of the world to spend more than a few weeks retaliating even with comparatively far fewer civilian and military casualties.

    But now with the unprovoked chaos Iran has been stirring up in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria by having directly-controlled Shia proxy militias kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and arrest, depose and assassinate scores of elected officials, they've shown what they're interested in doing when they feel they have the military strength to get away with it.

    Israel has never done anything to Iran even remotely close to the scale of the 9/11 attacks over the entire 70-year period of its existence. Iran by contrast has armed a hostile fanatical militia on Israel's border with over 100,000 missiles under UN protection, so that should be more than satisfactory retaliation for any imagined setbacks caused by any Israeli interference in their legitimate affairs.

    Launching wars all over the place is stupid. Launching wars on the specific people who just attacked you or planned for it and then sent others to do it on their behalf is smart, unless you can convince the local population to arrest, disrupt and justly prosecute them for you.

    The problem with you is that you don't seem to recognize that some people want to ruin your day no matter what, even though you're crying out for their rights to be terrorists. Do you remember who was the first to declare war on America after Britain recognized its independence? You kept sending ships laden with treasure to buy off the Barbary pirates of north Africa, but that didn't stop the attacks on US merchants in the Mediterranean until the US Marine Corps was reformed and sent all the way over to fight. The Barbary states said Americans were fair targets because they were Christian infidels, they weren't complaining about US involvement in Iraq and Israel 200 years later.

    Pakistan is the legacy left behind by the Holocaust-scale massacres of an invading Mongol-Turk hoard 500 years ago. Then they killed millions more when they broke off from India after WW2. They weren't going to become trustworthy friends of pluralistic secular democracy and kick Bin Laden out of President Musharraf's poolhouse if you only just stopped buying Saudi oil and supporting Israel, or threatened to cut off a few billion dollars in annual aid.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Bullshit.
    Nothing "pre-emptive" about that, for starters - as a war, H launched it in '91 at the latest. You could make a case for the Soviets launching it, in '79 (Moscow and Washington being on the same side of that war).
    No target for war, in the second. Nobody's army involved, no particular government or population to aim at - except Saudi Arabia's ruling families, maybe, or a couple of wings of the Pakistani military, and I don't recall them coming into focus.
    Pre-emptive self-destruction is something we can afford to not do under almost all circumstances - certainly all the circumstances we have faced so far.
    Pre-emptive slaughter of the harmless is something we should afford to not do, under almost all circumstances.
    The combination is very unlikely to be the best course of action.

    Pre-emptive "action"? Sure. Pre-emptive war? Been there, done that, got the pictures to prove it - supposed to have learned better.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Colburn
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre
    Rogue soldiers devolve to rogue combat units devolve to rogue combat bases devolve to rogue bases in the US devolve to rogue - - - ?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Nothing Iran does or could do is "unprovoked".
    And justifying the past 50 years of US military assault worldwide on such "homeland security" grounds as actually existed gives Iran carte blanche for practically anything - unlike the US, Iran has actual, non-fictional, immediate, and serious existential threats right on its border, being delivered by bona fide military targets. Iran is in fact under attack.
    "Unless" being a key word, there. Diplomacy first, that means. Actual diplomacy.
    And if had been tried and failed: the US was justified in "launching war" against a few dozen Arabs temporarily living in Pakistan and Afghanistan, along with their Saudi et al financiers wherever they were.
    And 1986 Nicaragua would have been justified in blowing up the White House, the CIA headquarters, several hotels in Miami, and various other office buildings and residences in the US - killing everyone in them.
    And 9/11 itself was (on those grounds) a justified assault - in fact, better justified: it targeted the perps much more accurately than the Afghan War could have hoped in its best projections.
    And the rhetoric begins its predictable skid.

    The frustration is understandable: during the forty year rise of internal fascism the US crippled its diplomatic corps, crippled its economy, and squandered its moral and cultural power. But it still has a kick-ass military. Play to one's strengths, is normally good advice.

    But war is hell.
     

Share This Page