Reply With Quote
Do you think we should continue our imperial endevours even when we see the warning signs of our own permanent economic demise at hand? Even with history's warnings about what happens to empires who seek perpetual conquest?
do you think we should do nothing in regards to iran?
Do you think we should continue our imperial endevours even when we see the warning signs of our own permanent economic demise at hand? Even with history's warnings about what happens to empires who seek perpetual conquest?
I guess we'll just keep asking questions in response to a question. So your inaction towards iran would lead to them getting nukes. That means you are ok with iran having nukes. What other countries are you ok with having nukes? any of them? Is there a line you would think sending in troops to stop the building of WMD's is just?
Do you understand the diplomatic power a country wields when they have the srongest economy in the world? Do you understand that our economy used to occupy that spot...now it slips into the pack because of our arrogance abroad? Do you understand how readily we could avoid military conflict if we simply strengthen our economy, and wield dipomacy?
Why are we to be the police force for the globe? You, as a conservative, would despise a government that picked up citizens who could not pick up themselves...why would you applaud us sticking our nose in other countries affairs? Solely in the name of national defense?
There have always been dangerous regimes abroad. Why all of a sudden are we so ready to risk our freedoms, the freedoms that come from a strong fiscal condition, in order to stamp out what we find threatening? There has never been a time in history without threat abroad, why do we need to dictate such now? And ask the bigger question: how would we ever afford it?
I say those that want perpetual war are traitors, they betray our country for personal interest, and they need to be cast out as such.
Last edited by Parker2112; 08-01-2010 at 04:13 PM.
Only their own pursuit and someone else's delivery would directly lead to them "getting nukes."
You put neo-conservative control-freak/"USA World Police Yeah!" philosophy on full display here. Neo-con small- syndrome as well.
wino seel of approvl
Yeah I know I got a little overzealous there...when I said "cast out," I meant sncwino seel of approvl
i think morons who think we can live safely while other countries are building weapons which can hit us and destroy us need only look to 9-11. Oh no I brought up 9-11. I'm fear mongering.
I never said military action towards countries attaining wmd's. I asked if you were ok with any country having them.
solely in the name of national defense. I think wmd's need a better term than national defense. maybe national survival. You generalizing us sticking our noses in other countries' affairs for this instance is naive. you are ok with any country building or just having wmds because it's none of our business? Really? What about citizens of obama's world. Like Osama? Can he have WMDs? Is that our affairs?Why are we to be the police force for the globe? You, as a conservative, would despise a government that picked up citizens who could not pick up themselves...why would you applaud us sticking our nose in other countries affairs? Solely in the name of national defense?
Weren't you for socialized healthcare? How does that stengthen our fiscal condition? Same goes for extending unemployment while not have any way of having the private sector add employment.There have always been dangerous regimes abroad. Why all of a sudden are we so ready to risk our freedoms, the freedoms that come from a strong fiscal condition, in order to stamp out what we find threatening? There has never been a time in history without threat abroad, why do we need to dictate such now? And ask the bigger question: how would we ever afford it?
I say those that want perpetual war are traitors, they betray our country for personal interest, and they need to be cast out as such.
Once again dip , I never said war. I think people who are willing to allow our enemies to build up for war and only think us able to fight said enemies after we are attacked are ignorant of the situation or just filled in their propaganda led beliefs. They are dangerous especially when they put their same formula into weapons that can destroy entire countries before one counterattack.
mutual assured destruction
Do we really want something like that with Iran, N. Korea, etc.?
What did Bush do about Iran?
What did Carter do about Iran?
Iran wasn't ever a threat to USA. Destroying a US embassy is not a threat to USA. The Repugs/Reagan secretly undercut Carter by negotiating with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election. Then the Repugs/Reagan did all about punishing Iran, because their priority was putting Movement Conservatism into practice by deregulating finance (lead directly to S&L disaster), cutting taxes on the rich, and raising payroll taxes, primarily hitting the poor.
Of course, the Iranian revolution was prepared by the CIA overthrowing the democratically elected Iran govt that was going to national Anlgo-Iranian Oil company and Britain's oil investments.
Wonder why Iranians hated the CIA's puppets of the Shah's family, why they hated USA?
He authorized a military mission to free the hostages that failed due to mechanical issues with helicopters. It was aborted on the recommendation of a Delta Force colonel.
Now tell us what Bush did about Iran, or are you going to try to change the subject again?
We had intelligence that 9-11 was going to happen and BUSH/CHENEY did . The president was briefed on that a month or two before and we let it happen. So we didnt need to be in Afghanistan before 9-11 to stop 9-11...snc argument fail.
And isnt it funny how we had SOLID intelligence about al queida operatives, planes and new york and did ...LET OUR CITIZENS DIE AND EVERYTHING.
but we didnt have squat tying Saddam to the situation and spent trillions to take em out.
BUSH... what a ing winner that guy was.
I think folks like you, folks who keep a raging hard on for violence conducted through our military abroad, and who are willing to lie and distort the truth at every turn in order to get 'er done, should have their mouths stapled shut so they will no longer be able to spread thier vile logic to gullible folks and children.
a neo-con with Cheney's walking stick. Then drop em off in a taliban hut somewhere and let them get their just due.
Im just sayin.
how many more does he need to catch up with you?
You all are a bunch of morons.
Bush ed up in Iraq. He should have never sold the war on WMD. Everything else is messed up.
Do we want a nation of actual theocrats holding nukes? THe simple awnser is no. That's idiotic, and we cannot afford to think that a nation that has mysticism as it's way of will act rational.
Do we need to invade other countries? No, that's idiotic. We can always do that tough he mann like in Bosnia and conduct a bunch of airstrikes over their facilities.
As far as Obama's plan to force kids into national service, get that bull out of here. We're a nation with a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We shouldn't have to sacrifice ourselves with out the individual consent of every person. We are a nation of individuals, and not a nation of a collective spirit.
Is Obama continuing some of the same Bush doctrine , yes. Was Bush wrong for it, ofcourse. We don't need to be spying on our citizens, and we should uphold the cons ution at all costs.
And that means nullifying Obamacare too.
Dont underestimate the usurpment of power to the federal government through this whole national service thing. That is not good. The federal gov is too big, and its power is too broad as we speak. The beauty of our nation is that the states can dictate their own fortune, just like individual citizens were intended to. And to put such a focus on increasing the scope and breadth of the fed gov is to take power away from the states and to remove protections in place to prevent us from living under a totalitarian machine.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And at the national level it has essentially corrupted both parties. We need to reaffirm the power of the states, let some of them up, let their citizens move to other states over if they are invested in the home state let them change their cir stances for the better. But to let the fed govt step in at every juncture is to promote the possibility that we become something our founding fathers never intended...a genized nation living under centralized rule and subject to power centralized in a single body.
The diversity of the United States (the name says it all, by the way) has always been respected, all the way back. But it is being eroded as we speak. And not for the better. And one of the key ways is through the imperialist policies of the recent and current administrations. WAKE UP SMALL- ED NEO-CONS. Your advocating for the same big govt that you dread. You are advocating for the diminishment of states rights for a national agenda. you;re arm of conservatism has become the shining example of sheepish public. you are being led by your collective short s at every turn.
MISSLE ATTACKS DONT = PERSONAL WORTH, folks!
Did you read what i wrote?
I condemned the National Service agenda. It's anti individualism.
Did you read what I wrote? You called me a moron, and I agreed with everything you said.
Something more recent, from a radical source:
Rep. Charles Rangel may be in trouble because he is your standard corrupt district of criminals opportunist, but that has not killed his mandatory slavery bill. On July 15, Rangel introduced H.R. 5741, the Universal National Service Act, and it was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 23. Even though the bill does not have co-sponsors, it is currently under debate.
“I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war. It is H.R. 5741, and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they’re men or women, whether they’re straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened,” Rangel said from the floor of the House.
Rangel specifically said the legislation is designed to be used “during time of war.” On the day before Rangel’s slavery bill went to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Texas Rep. Louis Buller Gohmert introduced House Resolution 1553. It has since been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel,” Gohmert’s resolution states.
Language contained in the resolution condemns Iran “for its threats of annihilating the United States and the State of Israel” (threats Iran has never issued) and supports the use of “all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons” (nuclear weapons Iran does not have and does not possess the capability to produce). Gohmert’s bill supports Israel’s “right” to use “all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran.”
In 2007, Mohamed El Baradei, at the time the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran did not have nuclear material and also stated that the country did not have a weaponization program.
Also in 2007, the National Intelligence Council, where U.S. mid-term and long-term strategic policy is formulated for the intelligence community, stated “with moderate-to-high confidence… Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.”
“There is no evidence that Iran has made a decision to produce nuclear weapons,” said Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov while speaking out against sanctions on Iran.
In July 21, the day before Gohmert introduced House Resolution 1553, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said the U.S. and Russia know that Iran does not have any nuclear weapons.
Despite the fact there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and no indication Iran plans to attack Israel, let alone the absurd notion it will attack the United States, Israel and the United States are preparing to attack Iran. The claim Iran plans to attack the United States is ironically reminiscent of the neocon accusation that Saddam Hussein planned to attack the U.S., one of several obvious falsehoods used as an excuse to invade.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel have been shuttling between Washington and Tel Aviv, pushing for crippling economic sanctions that even they concede will not change Iran’s nuclear policy. These sanctions are being put in place, both by the United States and its allies. The open prediction that they will fail is meant to indicate just one thing — military attacks are inevitable,” writes Muhammad Sahimi for PBS. “The rhetorical rationale for attacking Iran keeps coming out of Washington. Most astonishingly, there is a resolution before the U.S. Congress, signed by one-third of the Republican caucus, that urges support for Israeli military attacks on Iran…. The resolution, H. Res. 1553, represents a green light for a bombing campaign. It provides explicit support for military strikes.”
The bomb Iran consensus was underscored late last month when former CIA director Michael Hayden told CNN’s State of the Union that a military attack against Iran “seems inexorable.” Hayden added that in his “personal thinking, I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.” In other words, for Hayden, mass murder is preferable to diplomacy.
“The next step is tough sanctions, economic sanctions. Frankly it’s a last chance for Iran to avoid giving the rest of the world, including the United States, a hard choice between allowing Iran to go nuclear and using military power to stop them from doing that,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman in April.
“We have to contemplate the final option,” said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., “the use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”
“The administration needs to expand its approach and make clear to the Iranian regime and the American people: If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran’s nuclear and supporting military facilities,” former senator Charles S. Robb and retired general Charles Wald wrote for the Washington Post on July 9.Slaughtering innocents is a “terrible thing,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., but “sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time.”
Graham made this ludicrous statement regardless of the fact Iran has never threatened to attack Israel. It is based on a mistranslation of a speech delivered by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad published in the New York Times.
The Times played a big role in the Iraq invasion when Judith Miller published neocon lies about aluminum tubes and other such patently fallacious nonsense. Neocon lies ultimately resulted in the murder of more than a million Iraqis, a total approaching Nazi war crimes.
As should be expected, the neocons figure big in the Iran attack plot now unfolding. “If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The Iran government’s ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float.” Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Ins ute wrote earlier this year.
In other words, according to neocons over at the criminal organization largely responsible for mass murder in Iraq, Iran should be reduced to a parking lot in order to prevent it from responding to an attack.
Neocon Reuel Marc Gerecht explains how the United States will be sucked into an Israeli-launched attack against Iran. “What is important to understand about this campaign is that the aim of Gerecht and of the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so that the United States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran,” writes historian Gareth Porter.
That has long been the Israeli strategy for Iran, because Israel cannot fight a war with Iran without full U.S. involvement. Israel needs to know that the United States will finish the war that Israel wants to start.Self defense is not an option. If Iran responds to an attack — and its leadership has stated repeatedly it will — the U.S. will become directly involved.
Gerecht openly expresses the hope that any Iranian response to the Israeli attack would trigger full-scale U.S. war against Iran. “If Khamenei has a death-wish, he’ll let the Revolutionary Guards mine the strait, the entrance to the Persian Gulf,” writes Gerecht. “It might be the only thing that would push President Obama to strike Iran militarily….”
“Gerecht’s argument for war relies on a fanciful nightmare scenario of Iran doling out nuclear weapons to Islamic extremists all over the Middle East. But the real concern of the Israelis and their lobbyists, as Gerecht’s past writing has explicitly stated, is to destroy Iran’s Islamic regime in a paroxysm of U.S. military violence,” writes Porter.
This “paroxysm of U.S. military violence” will undoubtedly call for adding a fresh crop of bullet-stoppers and that is where H.R. 5721 comes into play. As Rangel noted, his bill will provide under government imposed mandate that “everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they’re men or women, whether they’re straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country” from imaginary and trumped-up enemies.
Rangel’s bill may never make it out of committee. The attack on Iran, however, is all but a foregone conclusion.
Shocking. Did you write that yourself?
I dunno, Parker. This doesn't sound security-force-ish.
The Bill gives details. Its domestic service UNTIL President declares times of war. Then they get a uniform. Deceptive methods to implement a draft.
I guess if getting vague intel that terrorists were trying to attack america, then clinton did nothing as well. Your logic fail
what are you tlking about exactly, conspiracy nut?And isnt it funny how we had SOLID intelligence about al queida operatives, planes and new york and did ...LET OUR CITIZENS DIE AND EVERYTHING.
but we didnt have squat tying Saddam to the situation and spent trillions to take em out.
It seems you are the one distorting truth. Either that or you are believing someone elses distorted truth. Good job making assumptions and then have a witty comment to cover the assumption. I bet you had that get er done thing waiting for a good week. The only vile i notice is from liberals, with your posts as great examples.I think folks like you, folks who keep a raging hard on for violence conducted through our military abroad, and who are willing to lie and distort the truth at every turn in order to get 'er done, should have their mouths stapled shut so they will no longer be able to spread thier vile logic to gullible folks and children.
a neo-con with Cheney's walking stick. Then drop em off in a taliban hut somewhere and let them get their just due.
Im just sayin.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
