quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Pointing a gun at someones head is the most obvious indicator of u.s. foriegn policy?

quote:

I said "one of" not "the" most obvious. But yes, sometimes moving a carrier group into an area broadcasts our governments attitude regarding certain global events. I find it inconceivable that you don't already understand that since you're such an obvious expert about everything.

Is it your position that the u.s. may shit where it pleases because it is powerful enough to do so?

Of course not. It's my position that the U.S. should always be prepared to defend itself to the best of its abilities wherever and whenever it's required.

quote:

Of course not. It's my position that the U.S. should always be prepared to defend itself to the best of its abilities wherever and whenever it's required.[/qote]


Which war that the u.s. has been in have we not started or insinuated ourselves into?

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 9/22/2013 6:21:11 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
My point is that you are sniviling about a reduction that you admit you know nothing about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Which war that the u.s. has been in have we not started or insinuated ourselves into?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Had korporate amerika had an interest in something besides profit...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Nazi:The u.s. made a ton of money and only cost about a quarter of a million body bags...How does that number compare to the dead americans in the civil war?
Pearl harbor:The u.s. knew in advance of the attak and allowed it to happen to provide us with probable cause to enter the war.
Cuban missile crissis:In return for the russians removing their icbm but not their tactical nukes from cuba the u.s. removed our icbm from turkey, and promised not to attack cuba.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
My point is that you are sniviling about a reduction that you admit you know nothing about.

Commenting about wanting our military to have everything it needs is sniveling?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Which war that the u.s. has been in have we not started or insinuated ourselves into?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Had korporate amerika had an interest in something besides profit...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Nazi:The u.s. made a ton of money and only cost about a quarter of a million body bags...How does that number compare to the dead americans in the civil war?
Pearl harbor:The u.s. knew in advance of the attak and allowed it to happen to provide us with probable cause to enter the war.
Cuban missile crissis:In return for the russians removing their icbm but not their tactical nukes from cuba the u.s. removed our icbm from turkey, and promised not to attack cuba.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
My point is that you are sniviling about a reduction that you admit you know nothing about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
It speaks directly as to whether our military is for our defense or for offense.[

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
So The constitution calls for us to wage offensive warfare in the name of korporate profit at the cost of the blood of our children?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I am sugesting that we not start wars of agression so that korporate amerika can make a few bux.

quote:

I agree. But does that mean we shouldn't continue to make sure our military is well trained and equipped?

quote:

I get the impression, thompson, that you feel offended by us spending money on our military just because some of our leaders have used it for the wrong reasons. But don't blame the hammer for what the smith does with it.

quote:

If there's one thing the Constitution does say without a doubt, it's that our government is supposed to provide for the common defense.

quote:

I only want our defense to be the absolute best it can be. And I want any potential enemy to know that no matter where he is, one of our aircraft carriers or submarines might be right around the corner.

quote:

Keeping the "bad guys" in check doesn't qualify as an act of aggression in my book.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
My point was that from a point of ignorance of the needs of the military you expressed a desire to acquire more tanks.

quote:


My point was that we have more than enough hammers.

quote:

quote:

If there's one thing the Constitution does say without a doubt, it's that our government is supposed to provide for the common defense.

No, that is in the preamble. The constitution creates a mechanism for creating a navy and a army(by extension the a/f).

quote:

Might it be possible for us to have fewer enemies if we quit fucking with people around the world?

quote:


Are you in favor of the recent regime changes we have instituted in lybia,afghanistan and iraq?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
My point was that from a point of ignorance of the needs of the military you expressed a desire to acquire more tanks.

You misunderstood me. I only meant that I wanted to make sure we had an adequate number of tanks for the military to do its job and that we maintain the ability to replace the ones that get damaged or destroyed. I pretty much feel the same about all military needs.

quote:


My point was that we have more than enough hammers.

Fair enough. And I agree to a point, as long as we maintain the ability to successfully respond to a threat anywhere on the globe.

quote:

quote:

If there's one thing the Constitution does say without a doubt, it's that our government is supposed to provide for the common defense.

No, that is in the preamble. The constitution creates a mechanism for creating a navy and a army(by extension the a/f).

Nitpicking. I think my point was clear even if my words were imperfect.

quote:

Might it be possible for us to have fewer enemies if we quit fucking with people around the world?

Of course. But that isn't the fault of our military. Their job is to do as commanded. If you want to point fingers regarding making enemies then look to the politicians with the big chips on their shoulders or the corporations who exploit the population of weaker governments for profit.

quote:


Are you in favor of the recent regime changes we have instituted in lybia,afghanistan and iraq?

I don't think there is any reason for us to be involved with Lybia. The same goes for Syria. I think Afghanistan was completely justified. And while I don't like the way it was executed, I think removing Saddam Hussein from power was also appropriate. We helped put him in power (which was stupid) then gave him WMD (which was criminally stupid) that he then used on Iran and others. In that way, we bore a responsibility for all the deaths caused by his regime. That made it our responsibility to remove him. The man was simply an armed nutjob. And despite the mess that's there now, I think something better will eventually come out of it.

quote:

:

Might it be possible for us to have fewer enemies if we quit fucking with people around the world?
Of course. But that isn't the fault of our military. Their job is to do as commanded. If you want to point fingers regarding making enemies then look to the politicians with the big chips on their shoulders or the corporations who exploit the population of weaker governments for profit.

quote:

I think Afghanistan was completely justified.

quote:

And while I don't like the way it was executed, I think removing Saddam Hussein from power was also appropriate. We helped put him in power (which was stupid) then gave him WMD (which was criminally stupid) that he then used on Iran and others.

quote:

In that way, we bore a responsibility for all the deaths caused by his regime. That made it our responsibility to remove him. The man was simply an armed nutjob.

quote:

And despite the mess that's there now, I think something better will eventually come out of it.

Since it is clear that we have made it worse how can we expect things to get better?

quote:


Afghanistan- actively training terrorists, with the goal of attackig us. Additionally the taliban supported islam militancy. Problem that needed a solution.

quote:



I would be in favor of action in order to break up the iranian/syrian/hezbollah/russian connection

quote:

Syria: Pro. Break the hezbollah/syrian/libyan connection. Kick out a naval russian station at tarsus. Quit the syrian domination of Lebanon. And support a society that had strong secular basis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Afghanistan- actively training terrorists, with the goal of attackig us. Additionally the taliban supported islam militancy. Problem that needed a solution.

So by that logic any country that we train insurgents against would have a free pass to attack us?

quote:



I would be in favor of action in order to break up the iranian/syrian/hezbollah/russian connection

Where in the constitution does it authorize the u.s. to intervene in the internal affairs of soverign nations?

quote:

Syria: Pro. Break the hezbollah/syrian/libyan connection. Kick out a naval russian station at tarsus. Quit the syrian domination of Lebanon. And support a society that had strong secular basis.

Where in the constitution does it authorize the u.s. to intervene in the internal affairs of soverign nations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Afghanistan- actively training terrorists, with the goal of attackig us. Additionally the taliban supported islam militancy. Problem that needed a solution.

So by that logic any country that we train insurgents against would have a free pass to attack us?

quote:



I would be in favor of action in order to break up the iranian/syrian/hezbollah/russian connection

Where in the constitution does it authorize the u.s. to intervene in the internal affairs of soverign nations?

quote:

Syria: Pro. Break the hezbollah/syrian/libyan connection. Kick out a naval russian station at tarsus. Quit the syrian domination of Lebanon. And support a society that had strong secular basis.

Where in the constitution does it authorize the u.s. to intervene in the internal affairs of soverign nations.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Article 2, Section 2.
Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Those are the two sections you claim give the u.s. the right to interfere in the internal affairs of a soverign nation. For those of us without xray vision could you point out speicifically where it says that?

quote:

For starters. For curiousity sake, when black jack pershing chased pancho villa across the border into mexico (assuming I remember my military history correctly) is this not "meddling in the internal affairs of other states".

Does your knowledge of military history include why villa crossed the boarder or how unsuccessful pershing was?

quote:

Of course it is.

WWII was a huge meddle into the affairs of germany, britain, france, vichy france, italy, denmark, the soviet union.

Funny, I don't recall any objection on the basis it was "meddling in the internal affairs of states".

The u.s. was not at war with mexico when pershing invaded mexico. In ww2 we were in a declared war. That would seem a sailent difference.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Afghanistan- actively training terrorists, with the goal of attackig us. Additionally the taliban supported islam militancy. Problem that needed a solution.

So by that logic any country that we train insurgents against would have a free pass to attack us?

It may have escaped your attention - but any country is able to attack us with or without terrorists. That it is not in their interest to do so; that it foolish to do so - are different matters

quote:

quote:



I would be in favor of action in order to break up the iranian/syrian/hezbollah/russian connection

Where in the constitution does it authorize the u.s. to intervene in the internal affairs of soverign nations?

quote:

Syria: Pro. Break the hezbollah/syrian/libyan connection. Kick out a naval russian station at tarsus. Quit the syrian domination of Lebanon. And support a society that had strong secular basis.

Where in the constitution does it authorize the u.s. to intervene in the internal affairs of soverign nations.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Article 2, Section 2.
Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Those are the two sections you claim give the u.s. the right to interfere in the internal affairs of a soverign nation. For those of us without xray vision could you point out speicifically where it says that?

quote:

For starters. For curiousity sake, when black jack pershing chased pancho villa across the border into mexico (assuming I remember my military history correctly) is this not "meddling in the internal affairs of other states".

Does your knowledge of military history include why villa crossed the boarder or how unsuccessful pershing was?

quote:

Of course it is.

WWII was a huge meddle into the affairs of germany, britain, france, vichy france, italy, denmark, the soviet union.

Funny, I don't recall any objection on the basis it was "meddling in the internal affairs of states".

The u.s. was not at war with mexico when pershing invaded mexico. In ww2 we were in a declared war. That would seem a sailent difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Since 1789 where in the fuck have we been attacked unprovoked?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Here is how the military works.
The c/c says do this.
The general says this can't be done with what we have so I will not do it...if you do not like that here is my resignation.
The pres keeps going down the line till he finds someone who will do what he is told so long as he does not get a ticket in the body bag lotto...some commanders actually understand that their troops depend on them not to put them hopelessly at risk. Recognizing this responsibility they would ethically refuse to put their men at risk foolishly. Not all officers are ethical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I think Afghanistan was completely justified.

Why?

quote:

quote:

And while I don't like the way it was executed, I think removing Saddam Hussein from power was also appropriate. We helped put him in power (which was stupid) then gave him WMD (which was criminally stupid) that he then used on Iran and others.

Wasn't that at our behiest?

quote:

quote:

In that way, we bore a responsibility for all the deaths caused by his regime. That made it our responsibility to remove him. The man was simply an armed nutjob.

Any validation for this moronic statement? Please spare me any propaganda cites. Tell me the shit he did that is any different than what we do and have done? Now if it is wrong for him then it is wrong for us and if it is ok for us then ...

quote:

quote:

And despite the mess that's there now, I think something better will eventually come out of it.

Since it is clear that we have made it worse how can we expect things to get better?