RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute...

RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JeffBC -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/24/2013 8:54:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I think Afghanistan was completely justified. Why? Much as I certainly agree with the main thrust of your point, I was and remain entirely in favor of our initial incursion into Afghanistan. Someone bombed our country (yeah, I'm counting jet liners as bombs). The government of Afghanistan publicly declared alliance with that party. That made them direct enemies of the US in my eyes. Of course, our handling of that mission was botched from the get go and it's ended in yet another horrid mess but I'm pretty clear that you don't get to bomb the US without some repercussions.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 7:50:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since 1789 where in the fuck have we been attacked unprovoked? Let me guess, it's the "who did what first" argument, right? Not buying it. You may as well start discussing cavemen and clubs. I simply asked when the u.s. had been attacked unprovoked. This disingenuous bullshit about cavemen is just stupid.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 7:52:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny 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. You state the obvious. The flaw in your logic is that it comes down to who we choose as Commander in Chief...unless you're going to start claiming our military is full of rogue officers. Since the president is appointed and not elected there is no flaw in logic relating to choice of presidents. Nothing in my post speaks to rogue officers.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 8:01:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I think Afghanistan was completely justified. Why? Because that's where the terrorist groups were taking root. Would cuba be justified in bombing terrorist training camps in fla.? 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: Specifically? I don't recall. Possibly. But if it was, it was an error on our part. Isn't it prudent to acquaint oneself with the facts of a discussion before forming opinions about things that one is ignorant of? quote: At minimum, I'm sure some in our government weren't unhappy that Iran was getting attacked. Regardless, I still put the blame for the attack on Saddam. Why? 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: I don't need to cite anything. It's a personal opinion. Thank you for the clarification. quote: But if you don't see a difference between Saddam Hussein and the U.S. then nothing I say is going to make a difference. However, I don't recall us ever bombing our own citizens with chemical weapons. Might want to look up "kent state,waco" for starters. Then of course there is the civil war,the indian wars,the mass deportations of mexican americans. 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?[8\|] quote: That's really up to the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. For our part, I'd say the best we can do is stay out of their way and try to support the government in the most beneficial way we can for all the citizens of Iraq...then be patient and wait to see what happens. Who should pay to rebuild the infastructure we destroyed?

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 8:08:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I think Afghanistan was completely justified. Why? quote: Much as I certainly agree with the main thrust of your point, I was and remain entirely in favor of our initial incursion into Afghanistan. Someone bombed our country (yeah, I'm counting jet liners as bombs). The government of Afghanistan publicly declared alliance with that party. The u.s. publically declares it's alliance with anti castro forces does that give castro the right to bomb terrorist training camps in fla,s.carolina,ga,tex,ca.? quote: That made them direct enemies of the US in my eyes. does the constitution authorize the invasion of another country because someone feels that country is an enemy? quote: Of course, our handling of that mission was botched from the get go and it's ended in yet another horrid mess but I'm pretty clear that you don't get to bomb the US without some repercussions. Someone burns my house to the ground and slaughters my family..I get the word it was bill smith so I go and burn his house down and slaughter his family only to find out it was not him..."well you don't get to burn my house down and slaughter my family without repercussions"[8\|]

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 12:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since 1789 where in the fuck have we been attacked unprovoked? Let me guess, it's the "who did what first" argument, right? Not buying it. You may as well start discussing cavemen and clubs. I simply asked when the u.s. had been attacked unprovoked. This disingenuous bullshit about cavemen is just stupid. What you consider disingenuous, bullshit, or stupid is irrelevant to me. But it seems that any discussion involving provocation is precisely about who did what first.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 12:40:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since the president is appointed and not elected there is no flaw in logic relating to choice of presidents. So it's your opinion that the citizens have no say whatsoever in who is allowed the position of President? quote: Nothing in my post speaks to rogue officers. I didn't say it did.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 12:44:59 PM)
What you consider disingenuous, bullshit, or stupid is irrelevant to me. But it seems that any discussion involving provocation is precisely about who did what first. My point is that in all the wars that the u.s. has been in we have been the aggressor. Nothing in the constitution supports this sort of behavior. To continue to claim to be the victim is not supported by history.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 12:47:35 PM)
quote: So it's your opinion that the citizens have no say whatsoever in who is allowed the position of President? Fundamentally not, the Electoral college is made up of party hacks which guarentee it is one man or the other. there is not gonna be a third guy.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 12:48:32 PM)
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since the president is appointed and not elected there is no flaw in logic relating to choice of presidents. [/quote] So it's your opinion that the citizens have no say whatsoever in who is allowed the position of President? Correct me if I am wrong but the party not the people chooses who is going to run. The electoral college is not required by law to choose this one or that one. So I ask what say does the citizen have in the choice of president,v.p,congressman,scotus?

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 1:50:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Would cuba be justified in bombing terrorist training camps in fla.? I can't speak for the Cubans or what they think about anything that goes on in Florida. quote: Isn't it prudent to acquaint oneself with the facts of a discussion before forming opinions about things that one is ignorant of? That depends on how important I think the conversation is. This one doesn't qualify as important enough for me to go refresh myself on all the specific details. But I think I can recall enough facts to say that if our government asked Saddam Hussein to attack Iran it was the wrong thing to do. quote: quote: At minimum, I'm sure some in our government weren't unhappy that Iran was getting attacked. Regardless, I still put the blame for the attack on Saddam. Why? Because he's the one that carried out the attack. quote: Might want to look up "kent state,waco" for starters. I don't need to look it up. I'm old enough to remember both events. And as tragic as they were, I don't consider what happened at Kent State or Waco to be anywhere near on par with Halabja. Kent State and Waco were poorly executed law enforcement events that ended with unintentional results. Halabja was an intentional attempt to kill as many people as possible as an act of war. quote: quote: That's really up to the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. For our part, I'd say the best we can do is stay out of their way and try to support the government in the most beneficial way we can for all the citizens of Iraq...then be patient and wait to see what happens. Who should pay to rebuild the infastructure we destroyed? Unfortunately, I think we bear the bulk of that responsibility. But I do draw some lines between the value of what we destroyed vs. the cost of what we build brand new. In my opinion, the Iraqi government should be pitching in to some extent.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:03:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Correct me if I am wrong but the party not the people chooses who is going to run. We do have the write in option if we were more conscientious about using it.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:04:53 PM)
and none of the electoral college could vote that. As I said the electoral college is strictly party hacks.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What you consider disingenuous, bullshit, or stupid is irrelevant to me. But it seems that any discussion involving provocation is precisely about who did what first. My point is that in all the wars that the u.s. has been in we have been the aggressor. Nothing in the constitution supports this sort of behavior. To continue to claim to be the victim is not supported by history. Do you consider the attack on Ft. Sumter to be the result of U.S aggression. If so, why?

Yachtie -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:20:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What you consider disingenuous, bullshit, or stupid is irrelevant to me. But it seems that any discussion involving provocation is precisely about who did what first. My point is that in all the wars that the u.s. has been in we have been the aggressor. Nothing in the constitution supports this sort of behavior. To continue to claim to be the victim is not supported by history. Do you consider the attack on Ft. Sumter to be the result of U.S aggression. If so, why? Guess it was kinda like this one - not something to go to war over. [image]local://upfiles/1352141/B5F2553A023B4E228E15D239615F13D6.jpg[/image]

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Would cuba be justified in bombing terrorist training camps in fla.? I can't speak for the Cubans or what they think about anything that goes on in Florida. I did not ask if you what you tought the cubans thought. Wanna try it again? quote: Isn't it prudent to acquaint oneself with the facts of a discussion before forming opinions about things that one is ignorant of? That depends on how important I think the conversation is. This one doesn't qualify as important enough for me to go refresh myself on all the specific details. But I think I can recall enough facts to say that if our government asked Saddam Hussein to attack Iran it was the wrong thing to do. So by your own admission you don't care enough about this discussion to actually participate... Tell me again why you are here? quote: At minimum, I'm sure some in our government weren't unhappy that Iran was getting attacked. Regardless, I still put the blame for the attack on Saddam. Why? Because he's the one that carried out the attack. I asked why it was sodamn insane's fault that we attacked him? If that was your answer then I must ask where in the constitution does it say we can attack a soverign nation that did not attack us or an ally we are obligated by treaty to help? quote: Might want to look up "kent state,waco" for starters. I don't need to look it up. I'm old enough to remember both events. And as tragic as they were, I don't consider what happened at Kent State or Waco to be anywhere near on par with Halabja. Kent State and Waco were poorly executed law enforcement events that ended with unintentional results. Halabja was an intentional attempt to kill as many people as possible as an act of war. You said I don't recall us ever bombing our own citizens with chemical weapons. I pointed out where they had been now you wish to compare the quantiy rather than the quality of the event. That's really up to the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. For our part, I'd say the best we can do is stay out of their way and try to support the government in the most beneficial way we can for all the citizens of Iraq...then be patient and wait to see what happens. Who should pay to rebuild the infastructure we destroyed? Unfortunately, I think we bear the bulk of that responsibility. But I do draw some lines between the value of what we destroyed vs. the cost of what we build brand new. In my opinion, the Iraqi government should be pitching in to some extent. Why? did they bomb themselves back into the stone age?

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:28:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Correct me if I am wrong but the party not the people chooses who is going to run. We do have the write in option if we were more conscientious about using it. If everyone wrote in the same candidate, what law requires the e/c to choose that person?

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What you consider disingenuous, bullshit, or stupid is irrelevant to me. But it seems that any discussion involving provocation is precisely about who did what first. My point is that in all the wars that the u.s. has been in we have been the aggressor. Nothing in the constitution supports this sort of behavior. To continue to claim to be the victim is not supported by history. Do you consider the attack on Ft. Sumter to be the result of U.S aggression. If so, why? Since both sides of that conflict were americans the answer is a resounding yes...duuuhhh

RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Guess it was kinda like this one - not something to go to war over. [image]local://upfiles/1352141/B5F2553A023B4E228E15D239615F13D6.jpg[/image] [:D]

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/25/2013 2:33:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Guess it was kinda like this one - not something to go to war over. [image]local://upfiles/1352141/B5F2553A023B4E228E15D239615F13D6.jpg[/image] Most scholars are aware of the fact that the u.s. was aware ,in advance, of the timing of the pearl harbor attack. Google could be a friend here...it sometimes keeps ignorant people from getting both feet in their mouth at the same time. Otoh those who rely on john wayne movies and the history chanel to educate them will only be embarrased when they repeat that ignorant shit in educated company.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875