PDA

View Full Version : The DANGEROUS Misperception of the American Military



protectionist
01-05-2015, 03:34 PM
In this OP, I'm doing something I've never done before. I'm linking to an article that I have not read. I don't have to. And you don't either. Just the subtitle is enough for me to make my commentary

Since I don't have 2 days to read this very lengthy article, I will simply speak to part of the subtitle which reads > "strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win" By this, is the author talking about Afghanistan and Iraq ? If so, he is dead WRONG.

There is nothing foolish about the US military fighting in these 2 countries. In Afghanistan, even Obama (as anti-war as he is) is leaving 9800 troops. He knows that the # 1 threat to American national security is the 100+ nuclear missles in Pakistan. With a fragile govt there, and millions of Muslim jihadist lunatics trying to get their hands on those nukes, US troops need to be there to be in close proximity, to be able to quickly seize and secure those nukes, when need be, and move them to a secure location, far away from the Pakistani jihadists.

In Iraq, you have the largest unproven oil reserves in the world + one of the largest proven reserves. This is enormous wealth, which if acquired, could give a rag-tag band of terrorists (ever hear of ISIS ?) a nuclear arsenal.
The presence of a formidable force of US troops in both of these countries, is more important than anywhere they have ever been at any time in American history, including World War II. As far as the mention of "endless", did anyone ever think it was going to be anything other than that ? Why would it, when this jihad has been going on for 1400 years already. And 1000 years from now, historians will ask what was Obama doing by pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2010 ? Trying to scour up delusional ultra-liberal votes, I guess (while placing the American people in dangerous jeopardy).

As for the word "win", one must assess what "win" means in a Muslim jihad war. It isn't like World War II, where you beat down your opponent, and then it's over. This war is indeed endless. You don't "win" it by ending it. You win it by preventing the American nation from being annihilated by nuclear missles, bombs, biological weapons, etc all over the country, day in and day out, year in and year out, century in and century out.

There is no "won". There is only continuous, endless "winnING."

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

Ethereal
01-05-2015, 04:05 PM
So go to Iraq or Afghanistan and fight.

The Sage of Main Street
01-05-2015, 04:23 PM
In this OP, I'm doing something I've never done before. I'm linking to an article that I have not read. I don't have to. And you don't either. Just the subtitle is enough for me to make my commentary

Since I don't have 2 days to read this very lengthy article, I will simply speak to part of the subtitle which reads > "strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win" By this, is the author talking about Afghanistan and Iraq ? If so, he is dead WRONG.

There is nothing foolish about the US military fighting in these 2 countries. In Afghanistan, even Obama (as anti-war as he is) is leaving 9800 troops. He knows that the # 1 threat to American national security is the 100+ nuclear missles in Pakistan. With a fragile govt there, and millions of Muslim jihadist lunatics trying to get their hands on those nukes, US troops need to be there to be in close proximity, to be able to quickly seize and secure those nukes, when need be, and move them to a secure location, far away from the Pakistani jihadists.

In Iraq, you have the largest unproven oil reserves in the world + one of the largest proven reserves. This is enormous wealth, which if acquired, could give a rag-tag band of terrorists (ever hear of ISIS ?) a nuclear arsenal.
The presence of a formidable force of US troops in both of these countries, is more important than anywhere they have ever been at any time in American history, including World War II. As far as the mention of "endless", did anyone ever think it was going to be anything other than that ? Why would it, when this jihad has been going on for 1400 years already. And 1000 years from now, historians will ask what was Obama doing by pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2010 ? Trying to scour up delusional ultra-liberal votes, I guess (while placing the American people in dangerous jeopardy).

As for the word "win", one must assess what "win" means in a Muslim jihad war. It isn't like World War II, where you beat down your opponent, and then it's over. This war is indeed endless. You don't "win" it by ending it. You win it by preventing the American nation from being annihilated by nuclear missles, bombs, biological weapons, etc all over the country, day in and day out, year in and year out, century in and century out.

There is no "won". There is only continuous, endless "winnING."

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ We should pre-emptively seize the missiles and oil before the Muzzie Manson Family creeps up and gets to them first. Since the goal of our guillotine-fodder ruling class is to make the 99% feel afraid and hopeless, I don't believe them when they say we can't disable the nukes in Pakistan and North Korea and the wannabe nukes in Iran with naval missiles and USAF drones instead of boots on the ground.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 04:47 PM
We should pre-emptively seize the missiles and oil before the Muzzie Manson Family creeps up and gets to them first. Since the goal of our guillotine-fodder ruling class is to make the 99% feel afraid and hopeless, I don't believe them when they say we can't disable the nukes in Pakistan and North Korea and the wannabe nukes in Iran with naval missiles and USAF drones instead of boots on the ground.

I have long agreed with you, and have stated in posts many times that we shouldn't wait for the Muslim nutters to grab the warheads. I've always said we should do in there now and get them. Things have gotten a little complicated since then. After repeated jihadist attacks on the storage facilities, the Pakistanis have (somewhat amazingly) resorted to defending the warheads by constantly moving them around in ordinary moving vans.

The Pakis have 2 things in mind. Keeping the warheads away from the jihad loons, and keeping them away from US troops as well. Problem is, if the jihadists manage to figure out where they are, they would be easy prey, with a minimum amount of security protection in an unsecured moving van.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/11/pakistan-transports-its-nukes-everyday-vans/44538/

Chloe
01-05-2015, 04:51 PM
In this OP, I'm doing something I've never done before. I'm linking to an article that I have not read. I don't have to. And you don't either. Just the subtitle is enough for me to make my commentary

Since I don't have 2 days to read this very lengthy article, I will simply speak to part of the subtitle which reads > "strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win" By this, is the author talking about Afghanistan and Iraq ? If so, he is dead WRONG.

There is nothing foolish about the US military fighting in these 2 countries. In Afghanistan, even Obama (as anti-war as he is) is leaving 9800 troops. He knows that the # 1 threat to American national security is the 100+ nuclear missles in Pakistan. With a fragile govt there, and millions of Muslim jihadist lunatics trying to get their hands on those nukes, US troops need to be there to be in close proximity, to be able to quickly seize and secure those nukes, when need be, and move them to a secure location, far away from the Pakistani jihadists.

In Iraq, you have the largest unproven oil reserves in the world + one of the largest proven reserves. This is enormous wealth, which if acquired, could give a rag-tag band of terrorists (ever hear of ISIS ?) a nuclear arsenal.
The presence of a formidable force of US troops in both of these countries, is more important than anywhere they have ever been at any time in American history, including World War II. As far as the mention of "endless", did anyone ever think it was going to be anything other than that ? Why would it, when this jihad has been going on for 1400 years already. And 1000 years from now, historians will ask what was Obama doing by pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2010 ? Trying to scour up delusional ultra-liberal votes, I guess (while placing the American people in dangerous jeopardy).

As for the word "win", one must assess what "win" means in a Muslim jihad war. It isn't like World War II, where you beat down your opponent, and then it's over. This war is indeed endless. You don't "win" it by ending it. You win it by preventing the American nation from being annihilated by nuclear missles, bombs, biological weapons, etc all over the country, day in and day out, year in and year out, century in and century out.

There is no "won". There is only continuous, endless "winnING."

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/


We should pre-emptively seize the missiles and oil before the Muzzie Manson Family creeps up and gets to them first. Since the goal of our guillotine-fodder ruling class is to make the 99% feel afraid and hopeless, I don't believe them when they say we can't disable the nukes in Pakistan and North Korea and the wannabe nukes in Iran with naval missiles and USAF drones instead of boots on the ground.

warmongers

protectionist
01-05-2015, 04:51 PM
So go to Iraq or Afghanistan and fight.

I would if they would allow me, but they say I'm too old (68). I did my military service back in the 60s. As for going as a civilian, can't qualify for that either, (or afford it). we can do some fighting here at home though by pressuring "our" elected reps to step up national security. Lots to do there. Ports, airports, Mexican border, sting operations, etc.

del
01-05-2015, 04:53 PM
In this OP, I'm doing something I've never done before. I'm linking to an article that I have not read. I don't have to. And you don't either. Just the subtitle is enough for me to make my commentary

Since I don't have 2 days to read this very lengthy article, I will simply speak to part of the subtitle which reads > "strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win" By this, is the author talking about Afghanistan and Iraq ? If so, he is dead WRONG.

There is nothing foolish about the US military fighting in these 2 countries. In Afghanistan, even Obama (as anti-war as he is) is leaving 9800 troops. He knows that the # 1 threat to American national security is the 100+ nuclear missles in Pakistan. With a fragile govt there, and millions of Muslim jihadist lunatics trying to get their hands on those nukes, US troops need to be there to be in close proximity, to be able to quickly seize and secure those nukes, when need be, and move them to a secure location, far away from the Pakistani jihadists.

In Iraq, you have the largest unproven oil reserves in the world + one of the largest proven reserves. This is enormous wealth, which if acquired, could give a rag-tag band of terrorists (ever hear of ISIS ?) a nuclear arsenal.
The presence of a formidable force of US troops in both of these countries, is more important than anywhere they have ever been at any time in American history, including World War II. As far as the mention of "endless", did anyone ever think it was going to be anything other than that ? Why would it, when this jihad has been going on for 1400 years already. And 1000 years from now, historians will ask what was Obama doing by pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2010 ? Trying to scour up delusional ultra-liberal votes, I guess (while placing the American people in dangerous jeopardy).

As for the word "win", one must assess what "win" means in a Muslim jihad war. It isn't like World War II, where you beat down your opponent, and then it's over. This war is indeed endless. You don't "win" it by ending it. You win it by preventing the American nation from being annihilated by nuclear missles, bombs, biological weapons, etc all over the country, day in and day out, year in and year out, century in and century out.

There is no "won". There is only continuous, endless "winnING."

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

nothing becomes you so well as your ignorance.

you want to fight endlessly?

there's the door, bucko, knock yourself out and take ransom with you

protectionist
01-05-2015, 04:53 PM
warmongers

Loss for words today ? Upon what do you base that charge ? (if you have a basis)

The Xl
01-05-2015, 04:54 PM
I would if they would allow me, but they say I'm too old (68). I did my military service back in the 60s. As for going as a civilian, can't qualify for that either, (or afford it). we can do some fighting here at home though by pressuring "our" elected reps to step up national security. Lots to do there. Ports, airports, Mexican border, sting operations, etc.
http://replygif.net/i/88.gif

No you wouldn't. None of you warmongers would.

This whole OP is nothing more than baseless fearmongering. You hawks are annoying and dangerous as fuck.

del
01-05-2015, 04:55 PM
Loss for words today ? Upon what do you base that charge ? (if you have a basis)

your own words, von moltke

it's not that complicated

The Xl
01-05-2015, 04:55 PM
warmongers

Concise, accurate.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 04:58 PM
nothing becomes you so well as your ignorance.

you want to fight endlessly?

there's the door, bucko, knock yourself out and take ransom with you

No. I don't want to fight endlessly. But with their 1400 year war, the jihadists obviously do. And when they are preparing to kill you, you do what ? Stick your head in the sand, like that animal in your avatar ? I prefer to defend myself. like the guy in MY avatar. And you wind up with the benefit of that defense too. If you weren't getting that benefit, that thousands of US troops have given you, you'd be dead now. (by jihadist nuclear bombs)

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:00 PM
The fucking jihadists had nothing to do with us until we got involved in their business post WW2 on multiple fronts, whether it be supporting their enemies militarily, imposing sanctions, fighting wars, invading, bombing the fuck out of them, you name it.

If you smack a bees nest, prepare to get stung. I think they're savages, but I'd rather just leave them to their own devices.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:00 PM
Concise, accurate.

You are also invited to present a BASIS for your charge. Adjectives don't cut it.

Chloe
01-05-2015, 05:01 PM
Loss for words today ? Upon what do you base that charge ? (if you have a basis)

Sorry i'll add some words to my previous post for you...

disgusting, irresponsible, evil, greedy, selfish, vengeful, dangerous, gutless, troglodytic warmongers

better?

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:02 PM
You are also invited to present a BASIS for your charge. Adjectives don't cut it.

I did already, but I'll sum up the reality of the situation for you.

They're small fry whose aggression towards us was a response to our meddling.

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:02 PM
I have long agreed with you, and have stated in posts many times that we shouldn't wait for the Muslim nutters to grab the warheads. I've always said we should do in there now and get them. Things have gotten a little complicated since then. After repeated jihadist attacks on the storage facilities, the Pakistanis have (somewhat amazingly) resorted to defending the warheads by constantly moving them around in ordinary moving vans.

The Pakis have 2 things in mind. Keeping the warheads away from the jihad loons, and keeping them away from US troops as well. Problem is, if the jihadists manage to figure out where they are, they would be easy prey, with a minimum amount of security protection in an unsecured moving van.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/11/pakistan-transports-its-nukes-everyday-vans/44538/

:shocked:

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:03 PM
Sorry i'll add some words to my previous post for you...

disgusting, irresponsible, evil, greedy, selfish, vengeful, dangerous, gutless, troglodytic warmongers

better?

http://img.pandawhale.com/45487-Jack-nicholson-shaking-head-gi-h6Lj.gif

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:03 PM
The fucking jihadists had nothing to do with us until we got involved in their business post WW2 on multiple fronts, whether it be supporting their enemies militarily, imposing sanctions, fighting wars, invading, bombing the fuck out of them, you name it.

If you smack a bees nest, prepare to get stung. I think they're savages, but I'd rather just leave them to their own devices.

That isn't true at all but regardless the reality is there is no leaving the ME to their own devices. Simply put, there is way too much at stake...

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:04 PM
Sorry i'll add some words to my previous post for you...

disgusting, irresponsible, evil, greedy, selfish, vengeful, dangerous, gutless, troglodytic warmongers

better?

You could try an argument...

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:04 PM
That isn't true at all but regardless the reality is there is no leaving the ME to their own devices. Simply put, there is way too much at stake...

Sure it is, all of it.

And yes, we know you think it's okay to wage war for oil. Some people don't operate under the same morality though, or lack thereof.

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:04 PM
I would if they would allow me, but they say I'm too old (68). I did my military service back in the 60s. As for going as a civilian, can't qualify for that either, (or afford it). we can do some fighting here at home though by pressuring "our" elected reps to step up national security. Lots to do there. Ports, airports, Mexican border, sting operations, etc.

You're in luck. You can go in with a private contractor. I can get you there if you want to go, zelmo1234 will, too.

Chloe
01-05-2015, 05:05 PM
You could try an argument...

No, not for those two. You may as well have a conversation with the rock in your driveway.

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:06 PM
Sure it is, all of it.

And yes, we know you think it's okay to wage war for oil. Some people don't operate under the same morality though, or lack thereof.

So you're saying that the West never had problems with the ME prior to WWII? That's your contention?

It's more than just the oil but yes, securing a global resource from the hands of militant terrorists is one reason to wage war...

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:06 PM
http://replygif.net/i/88.gif

No you wouldn't. None of you warmongers would.

This whole OP is nothing more than baseless fearmongering. You hawks are annoying and dangerous as $#@!.

HA HA. That I ALREADY served 5 years in the military proves I not only would but DID. Of course if you want to talk ridiculous, there 'a no law against it. Please present something of substance to the TOPIC, or stay out of the thread. Baseless charges are the same as no post at all. And what is annoying and dangerous is your attitude to allow attackers to attack, unchallenged. Luckily, our leaders (including even Obama) aren't that shallow. Here's a challenge for you. How would YOU stop the Pakistani nukes ? Got a theory ? Got anything ? (besides hot air rhetoric ?)

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:07 PM
No, not for those two. You may as well have a conversation with the rock in your driveway.

Give it a shot. It's better than trolling.

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:08 PM
You're in luck. You can go in with a private contractor. I can get you there if you want to go, @zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588) will, too.

What's the pay?

Chloe
01-05-2015, 05:09 PM
Give it a shot. It's better than trolling.

I will with you, but not with them

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:10 PM
I will with you, but not with them

Fair nuff. :)

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:13 PM
The $#@!ing jihadists had nothing to do with us until we got involved in their business post WW2 on multiple fronts, whether it be supporting their enemies militarily, imposing sanctions, fighting wars, invading, bombing the $#@! out of them, you name it.

If you smack a bees nest, prepare to get stung. I think they're savages, but I'd rather just leave them to their own devices.

Sounds like a great prescription for suicide.

EARTH TO XI: The jihadists have had something to do with the non-Muslim world (that includes the US) for 1400 years. It's called mass genocide, in which they have killed hundreds of millions of people, as they lunacy book (the Koran) commands them to do. They have never stopped this and they never will. The OP describes the solution, and the ONLY solution. Stick your hear in the sand if you must. We'll cover for you. (as US troops have been doing for 14 years, without your thanks)

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:13 PM
So you're saying that the West never had problems with the ME prior to WWII? That's your contention?

It's more than just the oil but yes, securing a global resource from the hands of militant terrorists is one reason to wage war...

Yes, basically. And then we supported the creation of Israel, gave them weapons, and did a ton of other shit there over the span of decades. If they did half of half of half of half of half of half of half of the shit to us as we did to them, we'd have turned them into a literal wasteland.

Don't use the militant terrorist angle. We all know it has nothing to do with keeping it out of their hands. It's more selfish and nefarious than that.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:15 PM
Sorry i'll add some words to my previous post for you...

disgusting, irresponsible, evil, greedy, selfish, vengeful, dangerous, gutless, troglodytic warmongers

better?

No it's not better. Not at all. I asked for a BASIS for your charge, and instead all you did was throw more unbased adjectives around, making an originally mindless post, even more mindless.

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:16 PM
HA HA. That I ALREADY served 5 years in the military proves I not only would but DID. Of course if you want to talk ridiculous, there 'a no law against it. Please present something of substance to the TOPIC, or stay out of the thread. Baseless charges are the same as no post at all. And what is annoying and dangerous is your attitude to allow attackers to attack, unchallenged. Luckily, our leaders (including even Obama) aren't that shallow. Here's a challenge for you. How would YOU stop the Pakistani nukes ? Got a theory ? Got anything ? (besides hot air rhetoric ?)

Baseless? Your whole post is baseless fearmongering.

If Pakistan had nukes, they'd be one of the many nations who had them. So what?

To be honest, if I was in charge, most of my defense budget would go towards developing anti nuclear or weapon technology. A nuke jammer, so to speak. Not offensive weaponry. Everyone will nukes soon anyway.

momsapplepie
01-05-2015, 05:17 PM
Give it a shot. It's better than trolling.
Nah, it's easier to insult and call them names instead of engaging them in a rational conversation.

PolWatch
01-05-2015, 05:17 PM
Everyone, stay on topic, quit calling each other names. We still have that blue light special on thread bans today

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:17 PM
Sorry i'll add some words to my previous post for you...

disgusting, irresponsible, evil, greedy, selfish, vengeful, dangerous, gutless, troglodytic warmongers

better?

This is a sensitive topic but let's be less insulting

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:17 PM
I did already, but I'll sum up the reality of the situation for you.

They're small fry whose aggression towards us was a response to our meddling.

So you are clueless that they have been fighting the non-Muslim West for 1400 years (most of it before the USA even existed). You aren't ready for this thread.

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:17 PM
Sounds like a great prescription for suicide.

EARTH TO XI: The jihadists have had something to do with the non-Muslim world (that includes the US) for 1400 years. It's called mass genocide, in which they have killed hundreds of millions of people, as they lunacy book 9the Koran) commands them to do. They have never stopped this and they never will. The OP describes the solution, and the ONLY solution. Stick your hear in the sand if you must. We'll cover for you. (as US troops have been doing for 14 years, without your thanks)

I don't care about going back 1400 years ago. Long ago, blacks were slaves, Christians were murderers as well, women with epilepsy were witches and burned, etc, none of that shit matters now

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:18 PM
Everyone, stay on topic, quit calling each other names. We still have that blue light special on thread bans today

LOL, beat me to it, homeslice!

Chloe
01-05-2015, 05:18 PM
No it's not better. Not at all. I asked for a BASIS for your charge, and instead all you did was throw more unbased adjectives around, making an originally mindless post, even more mindless.

You advocate for endless war to be fought by others which is not a solution to anything. It is a pitiful and extremely selfish position.

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:18 PM
So you are clueless that they have been fighting the non-Muslim West for 1400 years (most of it before the USA even existed). You aren't ready for this thread.

1400 years ago lol.

What aggression did they show towards the US in modern times pre Israels creation?

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:19 PM
Yes, basically. And then we supported the creation of Israel, gave them weapons, and did a ton of other shit there over the span of decades. If they did half of half of half of half of half of half of half of the shit to us as we did to them, we'd have turned them into a literal wasteland.

Don't use the militant terrorist angle. We all know it has nothing to do with keeping it out of their hands. It's more selfish and nefarious than that.

Supporting Israel only "hurt" the Palestinians which, despite the rhetoric from ME leaders, they are hated by their Arab bretheren. And we need to stop talking about the ME in general terms as one cohesive group all pissed at the Western world. That isn't the case.

There is certainly more than one reason for going to war but resources has been the most common reason throughout the history of mankind.

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:19 PM
What's the pay?

Depends on what he can do. Extraction teams usually can make $25k in 7 days.

Chloe
01-05-2015, 05:19 PM
Nah, it's easier to insult and call them names instead of engaging them in a rational conversation.

The person in the OP has to be rational first for there to be rational conversation with them.

Ethereal
01-05-2015, 05:20 PM
I would if they would allow me, but they say I'm too old (68).

You don't need the government's permission.


I did my military service back in the 60s. As for going as a civilian, can't qualify for that either, (or afford it). we can do some fighting here at home though by pressuring "our" elected reps to step up national security. Lots to do there. Ports, airports, Mexican border, sting operations, etc.

"National security" is just an excuse to impose totalitarianism and collectivism on Americans.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:20 PM
That isn't true at all but regardless the reality is there is no leaving the ME to their own devices. Simply put, there is way too much at stake...

Of course, but there are always those whose way to deal with a problem is to pretend it doesn't exist. With National Security, that isn't an option.

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:20 PM
Supporting Israel only "hurt" the Palestinians which, despite the rhetoric from ME leaders, they are hated by their Arab bretheren. And we need to stop talking about the ME in general terms as one cohesive group all pissed at the Western world. That isn't the case.

There is certainly more than one reason for going to war but resources has been the most common reason throughout the history of mankind.

No, it most certainly hurt us. It gave those who hate Israel a reason to hate us, and has given politicians ammo to justify our stay in that spot of the world.

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:20 PM
I don't care about going back 1400 years ago. Long ago, blacks were slaves, Christians were murderers as well, women with epilepsy were witches and burned, etc, none of that shit matters now

That's not what you said earlier...you said it wasn't a problem until the 40's.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:21 PM
You could try an argument...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/styles/smilies/lol.gif

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:23 PM
No, it most certainly hurt us. It gave those who hate Israel a reason to hate us, and has given politicians ammo to justify our stay in that spot of the world.

Time to ask yourself:

Why support countries who hate Israel? To me the more pragmatic approach would be to support the country that isn't innundated with religious based hatred and work from there... Maybe it's just me but not supporting allies because they are hated because of religious reasons isn't the best foreign policy in the world.

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:24 PM
And if Chloe lost someone she loved to the wars? She'd have no cause to say what she said? What if she had a boyfriend who may go to Afghanistan?

We warned her, but at the same time I don't know that you can talk about death and not have strong feelings about it.

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:24 PM
Depends on what he can do. Extraction teams usually can make $25k in 7 days.

Dude sign me up!

del
01-05-2015, 05:25 PM
Sounds like a great prescription for suicide.

EARTH TO XI: The jihadists have had something to do with the non-Muslim world (that includes the US) for 1400 years. It's called mass genocide, in which they have killed hundreds of millions of people, as they lunacy book 9the Koran) commands them to do. They have never stopped this and they never will. The OP describes the solution, and the ONLY solution. Stick your hear in the sand if you must. We'll cover for you. (as US troops have been doing for 14 years, without your thanks)

i always knew you were full of shit, i just didn't realize you were mentally ill as well.

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:25 PM
That's not what you said earlier...you said it wasn't a problem until the 40's.

An American problem. I don't care about where it was an issue anywhere else, especially not thousands of years ago.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:26 PM
Sure it is, all of it.

And yes, we know you think it's okay to wage war for oil. Some people don't operate under the same morality though, or lack thereof.

I explained in the OP why the troops are where they are. Did you read it ?

EARTH TO XI: It's about NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION. Oil is only a means toward that jihad goal. And in Pakistan, the nukes are already there. There, oil is irrelevant. Please try to keep up.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:27 PM
You're in luck. You can go in with a private contractor. I can get you there if you want to go, @zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588) will, too.

I already explained that in a previous post. Not reading the whole thread ?

The Xl
01-05-2015, 05:27 PM
I explained in the OP why the troops are where they are. Did you read it ?

EARTH TO XI: It's about NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION. Oil is only a means toward that jihad goal. And in Pakistan, the nukes are already there. There, oil is irrelevant. Please try to keep up.

If you're so worried about nuclear annihilation, go invade North Korea or something.

Jesus Christ, you crazy ass warmongerers.

Chloe
01-05-2015, 05:27 PM
I explained in the OP why the troops are where they are. Did you read it ?

EARTH TO XI: It's about NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION. Oil is only a means toward that jihad goal. And in Pakistan, the nukes are already there. There, oil is irrelevant. Please try to keep up.

fearmongering so that you can accomplish or hope to accomplish your own selfish goals is disgusting. You are disgusting.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 05:27 PM
No, not for those two. You may as well have a conversation with the rock in your driveway.

The rock would say as much as YOU are.

momsapplepie
01-05-2015, 05:27 PM
The person in the OP has to be rational first for there to be rational conversation with them.

What some consider to be rational may not be to other's liking, but then it's okay to slam them and call them names because of it? Ok got it . Saw that game already.

Chloe
01-05-2015, 05:28 PM
The rock would say as much as YOU are.

good one Patton

Chloe
01-05-2015, 05:28 PM
What some consider to be rational may not be to other's liking, but then it's okay to slam them and call them names because of it? Ok got it . Saw that game already.

uh huh

PolWatch
01-05-2015, 05:30 PM
del, XI, Chloe & Protectionist have all been banned from this thread. Do not respond to their posts. Anyone else?

del
01-05-2015, 05:30 PM
the protectionist is just who the author of the article he didn't bother reading had in mind- behind the troops all the way- 6000 miles behind to be precise

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:36 PM
Holy shit! I went to check on my dinner and now even ADMIN is banned! This thread must be killer!

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:37 PM
An American problem. I don't care about where it was an issue anywhere else, especially not thousands of years ago.

Gotchya. Would you agree that our allies problems are our problems? For example Nazi Germany's relationship with Iran?

PolWatch
01-05-2015, 05:38 PM
I have no idea how that happened....nuttin like banning the boss, huh?

Peter1469
01-05-2015, 05:38 PM
The actual "war fighting" part of Iraq and Afghanistan were fast and wildly successful. And cheap. Our fetish for nation building is where we got bogged down, took the most casualties, and spent the most money.

We have enough evidence that the locals of both places are not concerned with the western concept of a nation.

The Paki nukes are supposedly not assembled and well protected.

Matty
01-05-2015, 05:39 PM
Holy $#@!! I went to check on my dinner and now even ADMIN is banned! This thread must be killer!


He never said a word either did he?

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:39 PM
Gotchya. Would you agree that our allies problems are our problems? For example Nazi Germany's relationship with Iran?

He's banned from the thread. Don't talk to him.

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:39 PM
I guess I can continue this discussion with myself! I'm right! I win! The end!

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 05:40 PM
He never said a word either did he?

I dunnno, he can get kinda mouthy... :rollseyes:

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 05:40 PM
He's banned from the thread. Don't talk to him.

Yeah saw that after I posted.

PolWatch
01-05-2015, 05:42 PM
He wasn't in the thread....must be magic...or dumb-azz no knowing what she's doin (I'm inclined to the second reason)

protectionist
01-05-2015, 06:40 PM
The actual "war fighting" part of Iraq and Afghanistan were fast and wildly successful. And cheap. Our fetish for nation building is where we got bogged down, took the most casualties, and spent the most money.

We have enough evidence that the locals of both places are not concerned with the western concept of a nation.

The Paki nukes are supposedly not assembled and well protected.

The Pakistani nukes don't NEED to be assembled into missles It is just the warheads that are the critical thing. They can be made into missles or bombs later. The warhead nukes are LESS protected than any ever have been in world history. This has been a HUGE story for about 5 years now, but the TV media won't touch it, so a lot of people aren't aware of it. I posted a link earlier in the thread for the unsecured moving vans that Pakistan moves their nukes around in, and on ordinary unsecured roads. Incredible that it's 2015, and everyone in the world still doesn't know about this.

Again. Here's some links on it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-pentagon-s-secret-plans-to-secure-pakistan-s-nuclear-arsenal-20111104

http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-transports-nukes-everyday-vans-100000188.html (http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-transports-nukes-everyday-vans-100000188.html)

http://tribune.com.pk/story/287867/pakistan-hiding-nuclear-bombs-by-moving-them-in-civilian-vans-on-congested-roads/ (http://tribune.com.pk/story/287867/pakistan-hiding-nuclear-bombs-by-moving-them-in-civilian-vans-on-congested-roads/)

Codename Section
01-05-2015, 06:40 PM
I'm a dumb redneck and protectionist got banned from the thread in the flurry. He's unbanned with my apologies.

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 06:43 PM
I'm a dumb redneck and protectionist got banned from the thread in the flurry. He's unbanned with my apologies.

I wrote a song once called "I'm a drunk redneck who just picked up my paycheck."

protectionist
01-05-2015, 06:51 PM
There's hope for the forum after all. I'm gonna think positive in 2015. My new years resolution. I just hope the thread hasn't been derailed by all the substanceless posting. It'll pick up again. Positive. Think positive. :thumbsup: :sunny:

protectionist
01-05-2015, 06:59 PM
Dude sign me up!

Me too! (if I don't have to lay out any money in advance, and I can find somebody to take care of my 3 cats)

protectionist
01-05-2015, 07:15 PM
The sheer terror of this whole story to America, seems to be even overshadowed by even more concern in Pakistan itself. The link articles are producing a flurry of very nervous comments coming from Pakistanis in Pakistan. Here's just one that caught my eye, from a guy named Faraz.

"A commando raid to snatch atom bombs is complete non-sense. Special operations look easy in Delta force video game; in reality they hardly succeed. Osama raid succeeded because there was a single armed guard; it would have been a different matter if Osama had a dozen guards and a secret escape route. Denuclearization can occur if severe economic sanctions result in mass starvation and death, and the state willfully hands over the bomb in return for food and aid. Or if state fragments and doubts over safety of nuclear weapons force world powers including China to demand access to the bombs. But these scenarios are too far-fetched."

Frankly, I think the first scenario he mentioned, might not be such a bad idea. Pakistan is a relatively poor nation which, like it's neighbors India and China, has a very large population to feed. This would have to come from a bunch of nations though. Not just the US. Problem is that other nations often don't want to get involved, even though they clearly ARE involved, and can't be non-involved.

iustitia
01-05-2015, 07:19 PM
So basically we need to fight the terrorists because oil. No thanks.

iustitia
01-05-2015, 07:21 PM
What's the Constitution say about us being in Iraq and Afghanistan protectionist?

Private Pickle
01-05-2015, 07:23 PM
So basically we need to fight the terrorists because oil. No thanks.

You make it sound like it's a choice. It isn't.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 07:27 PM
So basically we need to fight the terrorists because oil. No thanks.

Why do people enter a thread with NO IDEA of what it is about ? How many times do I have to say the word NUCLEAR? 10 ? 20 ? 100 ?
Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle) http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/geez.gif (http://javascript<strong></strong>:void(0))

protectionist
01-05-2015, 07:28 PM
What's the Constitution say about us being in Iraq and Afghanistan @protectionist (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1054)?

Nothing.

iustitia
01-05-2015, 07:52 PM
Why do people enter a thread with NO IDEA of what it is about ? How many times do I have to say the word NUCLEAR? 10 ? 20 ? 100 ?
Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle) http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/geez.gif (http://javascript<strong></strong>:void(0))

The justification for Iraq in the first post is oil. Terrorists might get control of the oil. Erhmagerd. As for the nuclear thing. Who even cares? The United States was the first to get nukes, has used them, is the only one to ever use them, and is the only state I'm aware of convicted of terrorism in the World Court. The US has routinely used and engaged in terrorism throughout its existence. Why are we the ones that decide who gets nuclear weapons? What moral or legal authority are we? We've killed far more innocent people than al-Qeada and ISIS combined even excluding the 100,000+ from our nukes. Maybe we should something for once in the Middle East called "mind your own fucking business and go the fuck home".


Nothing.

That should be a hint.

protectionist
01-05-2015, 11:20 PM
The justification for Iraq in the first post is oil. Terrorists might get control of the oil. Erhmagerd. As for the nuclear thing. Who even cares? The United States was the first to get nukes, has used them, is the only one to ever use them, and is the only state I'm aware of convicted of terrorism in the World Court. The US has routinely used and engaged in terrorism throughout its existence. Why are we the ones that decide who gets nuclear weapons? What moral or legal authority are we? We've killed far more innocent people than al-Qeada and ISIS combined even excluding the 100,000+ from our nukes. Maybe we should something for once in the Middle East called "mind your own $#@!ing business and go the $#@! home".

That should be a hint.

1. Yes, terrorists might get control of the oil, and that constitutes a NUCLEAR threat, which is unacceptable, and must be eliminated.

2. Nothing wrong with being the first to get nukes , or to use them when and why we did.

3. I don't give a rats ass about the world court, or give it an ounce of credibility.

4. I don't accept the statement that "the US has routinely used and engaged in terrorism throughout its existence" , nor do I see a shred of evidence from you to back that up. I'd say it is the US that has carried the load in the fight against terrorism, losing many more soldiers than many other countries, who have contributed slightly by comparison.

5. Deciding who gets nuclear weapons is a matter of self-defense, not moral authority. In general, countries that are stable and not jihadist, are secure. Ones (like Pakistan) that are heavily jihadist and unstable, are not.

6. Again, you ramble on about the US killing innocent people. Got a source ? Got a link ? Got anything ?

7. How you can define protectionism of the American people from nuclear annihilation as not minding our own business, is hard to contemplate.

8. It's not a hint. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or that we should sit idly by, and allow ourselves to be blown to bits by Islamic lunatics.

Mini Me
01-05-2015, 11:37 PM
Sorry i'll add some words to my previous post for you...

disgusting, irresponsible, evil, greedy, selfish, vengeful, dangerous, gutless, troglodytic warmongers

better?

This was the fatal flaw of Dr. Strangelove. He'd gone absolutely mad with his fetish of blowing up the world.

Such types belong in the lunatic asylum.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 12:29 AM
This was the fatal flaw of Dr. Strangelove. He'd gone absolutely mad with his fetish of blowing up the world.

Such types belong in the lunatic asylum.

Unfortunately, we can't institutionalize every jihadist. But we try to do the next best things, despite resistance from Obama.

iustitia
01-06-2015, 12:53 AM
1. Yes, terrorists might get control of the oil, and that constitutes a NUCLEAR threat, which is unacceptable, and must be eliminated.
Pakistan has nukes and protected Osama for 10 years and we haven't tried to take their nukes.


2. Nothing wrong with being the first to get nukes , or to use them when and why we did.
Sure, if you're amoral and place no value on the lives of 100,000+ people. Acceptable losses.


3. I don't give a rats ass about the world court, or give it an ounce of credibility.
Why would you? They only determined that America sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua. No big deal for a nationalist. It's us vs them.


4. I don't accept the statement that "the US has routinely used and engaged in terrorism throughout its existence" , nor do I see a shred of evidence from you to back that up. I'd say it is the US that has carried the load in the fight against terrorism, losing many more soldiers than many other countries, who have contributed slightly by comparison.
Are you for real? Does your knowledge of history begin with 9/11/2001 and at that limited to easy reading from neocon pamphlets? Do you know anything at all about America's history at home and abroad?


5. Deciding who gets nuclear weapons is a matter of self-defense, not moral authority. In general, countries that are stable and not jihadist, are secure. Ones (like Pakistan) that are heavily jihadist and unstable, are not.
No, it's a matter of war mongering and hegemony. The Soviets had more nukes than us for almost the same amount of time. North Korea was never attacked for its nukes. Pakistan, again, housed Osama and we did nothing. Half of Africa and the Middle East is unstable and radical. Gonna invade half the map? Yes be brave against tribal sand warriors and cowardly against third world failed states with the potential to fight back. What a crock of shit.


6. Again, you ramble on about the US killing innocent people. Got a source ? Got a link ? Got anything ?
How about any instance of military adventurism in US history? How about the genocide in the Philippines? How about numerous instances of cutting down Indians for a myriad of selfish instances? How about state-sponsored terrorism in the third world? How about slaughtering the opponents of Syngman Rhee? How about our assassination program in Vietnam? And even if you ignore our instances of extermination, unjust wars and death squads - do you honestly think all those bombs dropped and drone strikes only make contact with teh natsies, commies and terurists? Get fucking real.


7. How you can define protectionism of the American people from nuclear annihilation as not minding our own business, is hard to contemplate.
That's... not what protectionism is. Protectionism is an economics concept. Come on.


8. It's not a hint. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or that we should sit idly by, and allow ourselves to be blown to bits by Islamic lunatics.

The Constitution says Congress must declare war. Going on a scavenger hunt for terrorists isn't part of the program. That's why there's three things allowed by the Constitution for dealing for foreign threats. Diplomacy, declaring war, and letters of marque and reprisal. Try hitting up the Constitution some time hero.

donttread
01-06-2015, 07:02 AM
So go to Iraq or Afghanistan and fight.

Time for America to put on our big boy pants and live off our own damned resources. Enough is enough

PolWatch
01-06-2015, 07:16 AM
'Going on a scavenger hunt for terrorists' -- What a great description!

Codename Section
01-06-2015, 10:04 AM
You make it sound like it's a choice. It isn't.

We have plenty of oil for ourselves.

Private Pickle
01-06-2015, 03:52 PM
We have plenty of oil for ourselves.

It's not about quantity. It's about price.

iustitia
01-06-2015, 04:32 PM
Quantity affects price...

Codename Section
01-06-2015, 04:35 PM
Quantity affects price...

Or it should when there isn't any collusion, but...

southwest88
01-06-2015, 04:57 PM
No. I don't want to fight endlessly. But with their 1400 year war, the jihadists obviously do. And when they are preparing to kill you, you do what ? Stick your head in the sand, like that animal in your avatar ? I prefer to defend myself. like the guy in MY avatar. And you wind up with the benefit of that defense too. If you weren't getting that benefit, that thousands of US troops have given you, you'd be dead now. (by jihadist nuclear bombs)

(avatar of Prexy Eisenhower)

Yah, except that Eisenhower let CIA slip the leash. CIA was supposed to be an analysis shop, attached to the Executive Branch, to get a non-military & non-Dept. State intel take on the World. Eisenhower let them run ops - in Iran (we're still fighting that one today, & the Iranians don't forget nor forgive), in Central America, Vietnam, we ran suitcases of money to Greece, Italy, & on & on. With the Dulles brothers @ Dept. State & CIA, our spooks ran riot for a long time, & there are survivors of the dead & maimed & disappeared who will likely never forget nor forgive, either.

Yep, Eisenhower was looking for a non-nuclear, non-military way to influence the World quickly, in real time. The problem being that the secrecy imposed by CIA & the rest of the alphabet soup of agencies blinded the US, & blinded Congress & possibly the Executive branch too (see Secrecy - the American experience - Daniel P. Moynihan, Yale U. Press, New Haven, c 1998. 227pp, photos & repros, index, notes. Excellent on the culture of secrecy, problems of secrecy - collapse of USSR, Bay of Pigs, McCarthyism, Vietnam, Pentagon Papers, Plumbers, Watergate.)

The ludicrous result is that the Soviets, China & the rest of the World knew what our intel agencies were doing, while the Congressional oversight & the US public were kept in the dark. A recipe for disaster, & that's what we got. & that's what we'll always get, so long as Congress can't/won't step up to its responsibilities & demand accountability from the spooks they are supposed to oversee.

southwest88
01-06-2015, 05:51 PM
So you're saying that the West never had problems with the ME prior to WWII? That's your contention?

It's more than just the oil but yes, securing a global resource from the hands of militant terrorists is one reason to wage war...

The US had problems early on with pirates - Shores of Tripoli, etc. But that was ages ago. Even the Somali pirates are getting leery, as the various shipping countries line up diplomatic/military support to make sure the cargoes go through.

& a global resource? If the oil/natgas is located in Iraq, Iran & other countries that are either neutral or actively opposed to US foreign policy, it's not worthwhile economically to go & get those resources - which belong to their country-of-origin, my opinion. Afghanistan, for instance, is supposed to be positively lousy with rare earths & gold & uranium & possibly oil/natgas deposits. But all this potential wealth is in the nearly inaccessible hinterlands, up mountain passes & away from transport nets, unless you want to play pat-a-cake with Pakistan some more. We were nearly robbed blind the previous two times, I would think we'd have learned our lesson there by now.

We need to tend to our own knitting for a while. Fix our infrastructure, attend to our public education K-12, resolve the crisis in the inner cities, adapt ag/nutrition policy to trending water shortages/global weather changes/disease & insect infestations - it's a long list. One that we can profitably pursue & resolve for the next two or three generations, I would think.

southwest88
01-06-2015, 06:03 PM
So you are clueless that they have been fighting the non-Muslim West for 1400 years (most of it before the USA even existed). You aren't ready for this thread.

It's not just the West - the irredentist Islamic fanatics are perfectly willing to make war on China, Japan, Korea, India, Africa - whoever isn't Islamic - or, in a pinch, whoever isn't sufficiently Islamic, in the same manner as the Islamic fanatics.

I don't think the fanatics are particularly dangerous until they have access to Western science & engineering - witness Pakistan's ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. They pursued unconventional means, with some help from N. Korea & other countries.

Offhand, there are probably scenarios & plans for the US to secure Pakistani nukes. & Indian, & CIS, & Israeli, & possibly Iranian plans as well. If push comes to shove in that part of the World, the airways are going to be v. congested, for a little while.

Private Pickle
01-06-2015, 06:06 PM
The US had problems early on with pirates - Shores of Tripoli, etc. But that was ages ago. Even the Somali pirates are getting leery, as the various shipping countries line up diplomatic/military support to make sure the cargoes go through.

& a global resource? If the oil/natgas is located in Iraq, Iran & other countries that are either neutral or actively opposed to US foreign policy, it's not worthwhile economically to go & get those resources - which belong to their country-of-origin, my opinion. Afghanistan, for instance, is supposed to be positively lousy with rare earths & gold & uranium & possibly oil/natgas deposits. But all this potential wealth is in the nearly inaccessible hinterlands, up mountain passes & away from transport nets, unless you want to play pat-a-cake with Pakistan some more. We were nearly robbed blind the previous two times, I would think we'd have learned our lesson there by now.

We need to tend to our own knitting for a while. Fix our infrastructure, attend to our public education K-12, resolve the crisis in the inner cities, adapt ag/nutrition policy to trending water shortages/global weather changes/disease & insect infestations - it's a long list. One that we can profitably pursue & resolve for the next two or three generations, I would think.

If oil in Iraq and Iran can be made to negatively influence global politics then it becomes a global problem.

We can't fix our infrastructure if the fuel that runs our economy costs too much. It's just math.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 06:10 PM
Pakistan has nukes and protected Osama for 10 years and we haven't tried to take their nukes.


Sure, if you're amoral and place no value on the lives of 100,000+ people. Acceptable losses.


Why would you? They only determined that America sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua. No big deal for a nationalist. It's us vs them.


Are you for real? Does your knowledge of history begin with 9/11/2001 and at that limited to easy reading from neocon pamphlets? Do you know anything at all about America's history at home and abroad?


No, it's a matter of war mongering and hegemony. The Soviets had more nukes than us for almost the same amount of time. North Korea was never attacked for its nukes. Pakistan, again, housed Osama and we did nothing. Half of Africa and the Middle East is unstable and radical. Gonna invade half the map? Yes be brave against tribal sand warriors and cowardly against third world failed states with the potential to fight back. What a crock of $#@!.


How about any instance of military adventurism in US history? How about the genocide in the Philippines? How about numerous instances of cutting down Indians for a myriad of selfish instances? How about state-sponsored terrorism in the third world? How about slaughtering the opponents of Syngman Rhee? How about our assassination program in Vietnam? And even if you ignore our instances of extermination, unjust wars and death squads - do you honestly think all those bombs dropped and drone strikes only make contact with teh natsies, commies and terurists? Get $#@!ing real.


That's... not what protectionism is. Protectionism is an economics concept. Come on.



The Constitution says Congress must declare war. Going on a scavenger hunt for terrorists isn't part of the program. That's why there's three things allowed by the Constitution for dealing for foreign threats. Diplomacy, declaring war, and letters of marque and reprisal. Try hitting up the Constitution some time hero.

Typical mindless liberal ideas. Ho hum. Yawn *****

1. "we haven't tried to take their nukes" So ?

2. Typical distortion of the issue. Lives lost of 100K Japs is not the issue. Lives lost of 100K Japs VS lives lost of more than 100K Japs + thousands of US troops as well, in the event of a mainland invasion. Now you may do your morality equation.

3. I supported the Sandanistas, and the election that brought Daniel Ortega to power was a lot more democratic than the rent control one in my home town in California, where landlords from all over the state ganged up on our RC committee, and outspent us 20 to 1. Did I say "election". Sorry, I meant auction. BTW, the Nicaragua issue was 30 years ago. Iraq & Afgahnistan are NOW.

4. America's history ? I can give you lessons about Vietnam and the senselessness of it, but again, I'm talking about US troops overseas NOW, not through history.

5. Since your # 5 looks like jibberish, I'll just re-state what I said before, adding that yes, US troops should be ANYWHERE that jihadists pose a nuclear threat. No continent is exempt. (Deciding who gets nuclear weapons is a matter of self-defense, not moral authority. In general, countries that are stable and not jihadist, are secure. Ones (like Pakistan) that are heavily jihadist and unstable, are not.)

6. You seem to like to delve into a lot of history. Your bag. Not mine. When your posts are in the PRESENT (21st century, preferably past 5 years), THEN I'll regard them worth discussion.

7. Protectionism - the process of protecting. Protectionist - one who protects. :icon_biggrin:

8. What happened, Mr. History ? Did you not note that not a single American war since World War II, had a Congressional declaration of War ? And if you had the slightest foundation in what is occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq, you wouldn't go around making :lame: comments like "scavenger hunt for terrorists ".. No excuses. The OP gave you that foundation.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 06:15 PM
'Going on a scavenger hunt for terrorists' -- What a great description!

For anyone unable to comprehend the OP.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 06:20 PM
(avatar of Prexy Eisenhower)

Yah, except that Eisenhower let CIA slip the leash. CIA was supposed to be an analysis shop, attached to the Executive Branch, to get a non-military & non-Dept. State intel take on the World. Eisenhower let them run ops - in Iran (we're still fighting that one today, & the Iranians don't forget nor forgive), in Central America, Vietnam, we ran suitcases of money to Greece, Italy, & on & on. With the Dulles brothers @ Dept. State & CIA, our spooks ran riot for a long time, & there are survivors of the dead & maimed & disappeared who will likely never forget nor forgive, either.

Yep, Eisenhower was looking for a non-nuclear, non-military way to influence the World quickly, in real time. The problem being that the secrecy imposed by CIA & the rest of the alphabet soup of agencies blinded the US, & blinded Congress & possibly the Executive branch too (see Secrecy - the American experience - Daniel P. Moynihan, Yale U. Press, New Haven, c 1998. 227pp, photos & repros, index, notes. Excellent on the culture of secrecy, problems of secrecy - collapse of USSR, Bay of Pigs, McCarthyism, Vietnam, Pentagon Papers, Plumbers, Watergate.)

The ludicrous result is that the Soviets, China & the rest of the World knew what our intel agencies were doing, while the Congressional oversight & the US public were kept in the dark. A recipe for disaster, & that's what we got. & that's what we'll always get, so long as Congress can't/won't step up to its responsibilities & demand accountability from the spooks they are supposed to oversee.


Lot of interesting stuff. Only thing is, this isn't a history thread. it just happens to have a historical avatar. Let's stick to the topic of the threat of nuclear disaster from Islamic jihad. Thanks.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 06:22 PM
The US had problems early on with pirates - Shores of Tripoli, etc. But that was ages ago. Even the Somali pirates are getting leery, as the various shipping countries line up diplomatic/military support to make sure the cargoes go through.

& a global resource? If the oil/natgas is located in Iraq, Iran & other countries that are either neutral or actively opposed to US foreign policy, it's not worthwhile economically to go & get those resources - which belong to their country-of-origin, my opinion. Afghanistan, for instance, is supposed to be positively lousy with rare earths & gold & uranium & possibly oil/natgas deposits. But all this potential wealth is in the nearly inaccessible hinterlands, up mountain passes & away from transport nets, unless you want to play pat-a-cake with Pakistan some more. We were nearly robbed blind the previous two times, I would think we'd have learned our lesson there by now.

We need to tend to our own knitting for a while. Fix our infrastructure, attend to our public education K-12, resolve the crisis in the inner cities, adapt ag/nutrition policy to trending water shortages/global weather changes/disease & insect infestations - it's a long list. One that we can profitably pursue & resolve for the next two or three generations, I would think.

I'm just curious. Did you read even ONE SENTENCE of the OP ? (you're off on a tangent)

protectionist
01-06-2015, 06:26 PM
It's not just the West - the irredentist Islamic fanatics are perfectly willing to make war on China, Japan, Korea, India, Africa - whoever isn't Islamic - or, in a pinch, whoever isn't sufficiently Islamic, in the same manner as the Islamic fanatics.

I don't think the fanatics are particularly dangerous until they have access to Western science & engineering - witness Pakistan's ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. They pursued unconventional means, with some help from N. Korea & other countries.

Offhand, there are probably scenarios & plans for the US to secure Pakistani nukes. & Indian, & CIS, & Israeli, & possibly Iranian plans as well. If push comes to shove in that part of the World, the airways are going to be v. congested, for a little while.

Now you're ON TOPIC. :thumbsup20:

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/the-pentagons-secret-plans-to-secure-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal/

protectionist
01-06-2015, 06:29 PM
If oil in Iraq and Iran can be made to negatively influence global politics then it becomes a global problem.

We can't fix our infrastructure if the fuel that runs our economy costs too much. It's just math.

That's the minor part of it. The major part is the wealth that oil creates, thus enabling jihadists to become nuclear in their ambitions of conquest.

iustitia
01-06-2015, 06:35 PM
Typical mindless liberal ideas. Ho hum. Yawn *****

1. "we haven't tried to take their nukes" So ?

Not liberal. Rational. And you're only to fight desert tribalists but not a state that has the capacity to fight back. All the more reason for jihadists to want nukes and a state of their own. Because as North Korea proved, it doesn't matter how much the West hates and denigrates you or how crazy people think you are; if you have nukes America isn't going to do shit to you.


2. Typical distortion of the issue. Lives lost of 100K Japs is not the issue. Lives lost of 100K Japs VS lives lost of more than 100K Japs + thousands of US troops as well, in the event of a mainland invasion. Now you may do your morality equation.

Absolute nonsense that I've disproven multiple times here. It's nothing but Truman propaganda that the nukes were needed to end the war and prevent American deaths. I'll suggest you pull out the red white and blue pole and try reading some actual history. The US caused the war, then prolonged it by refusing to accept peace offers, then for absolutely no reason dropped two nukes on civilian populations when Truman knew the war would be over in just days. Here's some actual history, not the atrocity propaganda you've absorbed-
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/29832-Did-FDR-push-Japan-into-attacking
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/bionic-mosquito/the-devil-truman/

"Less than one year after the end of the war, the US Strategic Bombing Survey’s official report on the Pacific War appeared. The authors concluded that…

“the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan….certainly prior to December 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945 Japan would have surrendered, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” (emphasis added)


Truman’s response to this report? He put Stimson to work to set the record straight (meaning, establish the desired narrative). Much of the propaganda (http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/02/decision-to-use-atomic-bomb.html) associated with the official narrative can be traced to Stimson’s efforts, as documented by McGeorge Bundy."


3. I supported the Sandanistas, and the election that brought Daniel Ortega to power was a lot more democratic than the rent control one in my home town in California, where landlords from all over the state ganged up on our RC committee, and outspent us 20 to 1. Did I say "election". Sorry, I meant auction. BTW, the Nicaragua issue was 30 years ago. Iraq & Afgahnistan are NOW.

Of course you want to ignore the past, because a repeated history of criminality undermines your bullshit nationalism and patriotic myth of self-defense. People like you are the reason government gets away with bullshit. You're short-sighted and don't give a fuck about the victims of your mindless roboticism.


4. America's history ? I can give you lessons about Vietnam and the senselessness of it, but again, I'm talking about US troops overseas NOW, not through history.

Ibid.


5. Since your # 5 looks like jibberish, I'll just re-state what I said before, adding that yes, US troops should be ANYWHERE that jihadists pose a nuclear threat. No continent is exempt. (Deciding who gets nuclear weapons is a matter of self-defense, not moral authority. In general, countries that are stable and not jihadist, are secure. Ones (like Pakistan) that are heavily jihadist and unstable, are not.)

Ibid. Also, you're an imperialist warmonger.


6. You seem to like to delve into a lot of history. Your bag. Not mine. When your posts are in the PRESENT (21st century, preferably past 5 years), THEN I'll regard them worth discussion.

I don't care what you regard worth discussing. You say stupid shit and I'll tear that ass up for everyone to see. The problem with neocons and warmongers in general is the nasty habit of proclaiming pure intentions like protection of our people while completely refusing to acknowledge historical evidence proving that to not be the case. It's a special type of sycophant to luv 'Murica to the extent that they don't want to be bothered with its track record when contemplating perpetual war in the name of self-defense.


7. Protectionism - the process of protecting. Protectionist - one who protects. :icon_biggrin:

No.


8. What happened, Mr. History ? Did you not note that not a single American war since World War II, had a Congressional declaration of War ? And if you had the slightest foundation in what is occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq, you wouldn't go around making :lame: comments like "scavenger hunt for terrorists ".. No excuses. The OP gave you that foundation.

The fact that illegal wars have happened is not a reason to continue having them. That is retarded.

southwest88
01-06-2015, 06:36 PM
The actual "war fighting" part of Iraq and Afghanistan were fast and wildly successful. And cheap. Our fetish for nation building is where we got bogged down, took the most casualties, and spent the most money.

We have enough evidence that the locals of both places are not concerned with the western concept of a nation.

The Paki nukes are supposedly not assembled and well protected.

The reprisals in Afghanistan were fast & relatively successful, because the goals - destroy everyone fool enough to stand in our way - & drive Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan - were sharply defined, & we put in a minimum footprint & slammed in enough arty, tac air, Arc Light bombing missions, naval arty, Spectre gunships & on & on. Our few troops were select professionals - SEALs, Delta, CIA - with integral linguists, culturally adept, with medics & lots of FAC & target designation gear & expertise. We moved a lot of dirt, we lit up targets with minimal wait time, & we obliterated strongpoints, masses of men, depots, political HQs, you name it.

Our spook community already knew (since our backing of the Mujahedeen against the Soviets - under Prexies Carter/Reagan - that the warlords & etc. weren't interested in democracy, nor the West in general, except as a source of weapons & money. Those people probably raised objections to the full-scale invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, & I'm sure they were quietly cashiered or allowed to retire. Certainly the logistics command @ the Pentagon was stifled, & underwent the same purging. We got what we planned for - a quagmire with an excellent force for conventional warfare, & willing to try in urban warfare/counter-insurgency. But house-to-house is the worst kind of counter-insurgency fighting possible.

We don't have a fetish for nation building. What we have now in Iraq (& likely in Afghanistan) is only helpful for Iran - who now have a friendly regime in Iraq, & who have bloody-minded (if the wrong flavor of Islam) sort-of allies in Afghanistan (& Pakistan, & ...) to deal with. Yah, Prexy W had to do something about Al Qaeda, & not-quite-nuking the joint was probably the best response. Invasion (of either country) with conventional military forces was out of the question - because in the long run - which is supposed to be our goal - the current mess is not in our (nor the West's) interest. & we weren't & aren't ready to commit to a WWII-level of effort, nor a Marshall Plan @ the end of it - to actually rebuild those countries in a form more palatable to us.

southwest88
01-06-2015, 06:52 PM
The sheer terror of this whole story to America, seems to be even overshadowed by even more concern in Pakistan itself. The link articles are producing a flurry of very nervous comments coming from Pakistanis in Pakistan. Here's just one that caught my eye, from a guy named Faraz.

...


Of course the Pakistanis should be scared out of their wits. They have a v. bad track record of losing against the Indian military - what, 3 times now. (There used to be an E. Pakistan.)

& the Indian gov./military is perfectly willing to risk widespread radiation/contamination to destroy the Paki nukes - if the wind is from the right direction. The Indus watershed is a different critter - See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111012-india-pakistan-indus-river-water/ - for now, both countries are ratcheting down tensions over the Indus. But long term, that situation will grow more dire - as both country's populations soar & hydroelectric & water issues boil over.

The harsher the rhetoric between the countries, the more India will be tempted to go for an all-or-nothing response.

Private Pickle
01-06-2015, 06:57 PM
That's the minor part of it. The major part is the wealth that oil creates, thus enabling jihadists to become nuclear in their ambitions of conquest.

The oil industry is the one private sector entity I would consider a discussion on nationalizing.

southwest88
01-06-2015, 07:21 PM
1. Yes, terrorists might get control of the oil, and that constitutes a NUCLEAR threat, which is unacceptable, and must be eliminated.

...

4. I don't accept the statement that "the US has routinely used and engaged in terrorism throughout its existence" , nor do I see a shred of evidence from you to back that up. I'd say it is the US that has carried the load in the fight against terrorism, losing many more soldiers than many other countries, who have contributed slightly by comparison.

5. Deciding who gets nuclear weapons is a matter of self-defense, not moral authority. In general, countries that are stable and not jihadist, are secure. Ones (like Pakistan) that are heavily jihadist and unstable, are not.

...

7. How you can define protectionism of the American people from nuclear annihilation as not minding our own business, is hard to contemplate.

8. It's not a hint. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or that we should sit idly by, and allow ourselves to be blown to bits by Islamic lunatics.


1. Pakistan doesn't have any oil, TMK - & yet they went nuclear.

4. I would have said force rather than terrorism - but yah, we've invaded lots of places in our time. Look up the topic. & quite often, we dressed up the action in pleasant fictions - but dead is dead, & we have a fair amount of blame to shoulder - if we ever allow ourselves to see it.

5. Pakistan - Pakistan went nuclear because we (Prexies Carter/Reagan, Saudi, etc.) allowed them to skim off the arms, materials, money we raised for the Mujahedeen to fight against the Soviets & their puppet gov. in Afghanistan. They also had capable physicists, some outside help, & a good cadre of engineers, infrastructure, & Western firms/govs. willing to sell them whatever they needed. The US & everyone involved knew that Pakistan was skimming off, & we also knew that the Pakistani ISI was only delivering aid (we allowed that too - insult to injury) to those groups they were cultivating - for defense in depth - in other words, getting ready for their next loss to Indian military - to have a place to retreat to. We also knew that Pakistan was Jonesing for their own nuke force - & we went on plowing money & materials through ISI hands anyway. Our WOT was yet another blast of money to Pakistan, & has gone to substantially the same cause - only now, they're trying to fabricate an in-house delivery system for their nukes, & likely trying to miniaturize their warheads for missile use.

7. & 8. Pakistan doesn't have a delivery system that can reach us. Yah, we need to keep an eye on that - but India is doing that also. Israel, too - as they don't want to be a target of a live nuke anymore than we do - & Israel is a likelier target, if things go completely wrong in Pakistan.

southwest88
01-06-2015, 09:07 PM
If oil in Iraq and Iran can be made to negatively influence global politics then it becomes a global problem.

We can't fix our infrastructure if the fuel that runs our economy costs too much. It's just math.


We can get @ Iraq - we can condition loans, assistance, etc. on helping steer their oil output. But Iran is beyond our control/influence (see the notes on Prexy Eisenhower above). What we can do - is keep putting pressure on the World price for sweet light crude - by fracking, & sharing the technology as much as we can. This has the additional advantage of poking PM Putin & the CIS in the eye - their economy is still largely extractive, & if we can put a monkey wrench in their political economy, maybe they'll be more willing to see things our way.

Long term, we need to get above the atmosphere, into low orbit, & build solar collectors & beam the power down. Then we could undercut everybody's price - & (MO) it would be v. helpful to cut the legs out from under the Saudi's marriage of convenience to Wahhabi Islam. If the price crashes sufficiently low, the Saudis might rethink their World-wide support (madrassas, training their worthless male princelings-in-waiting as imams, publications support, outreach support, etc.) for the Wahhabi school.

Yah, our economy used to run on wood, then coal. Then kerosene, for a while. It turned out that bunker oil (ships & trains) & gasoline contained more energy per unit of weight than the others. Someday, we may even get to direct fusion. Solar is the next-best thing, benefits of fusion without actually having to worry about the by-products, explosions, etc. (Course, solar isn't as portable. But once you get into space, the sun is always shining, & @ the same output, for the next - oh, 5 billion years, I believe.)

If oil/natgas gets too expensive - unlikely, as long as fracking can keep up with the demand - we can still afford to fix our infrastructure. Whether we have the political will is a different question, but also germane.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 10:11 PM
Not liberal. Rational. And you're only to fight desert tribalists but not a state that has the capacity to fight back. All the more reason for jihadists to want nukes and a state of their own. Because as North Korea proved, it doesn't matter how much the West hates and denigrates you or how crazy people think you are; if you have nukes America isn't going to do $#@! to you.

Absolute nonsense that I've disproven multiple times here. It's nothing but Truman propaganda that the nukes were needed to end the war and prevent American deaths. I'll suggest you pull out the red white and blue pole and try reading some actual history. The US caused the war, then prolonged it by refusing to accept peace offers, then for absolutely no reason dropped two nukes on civilian populations when Truman knew the war would be over in just days. Here's some actual history, not the atrocity propaganda you've absorbed-
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/29832-Did-FDR-push-Japan-into-attacking
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/bionic-mosquito/the-devil-truman/

"Less than one year after the end of the war, the US Strategic Bombing Survey’s official report on the Pacific War appeared. The authors concluded that…
“the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan….certainly prior to December 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945 Japan would have surrendered, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” (emphasis added)


Truman’s response to this report? He put Stimson to work to set the record straight (meaning, establish the desired narrative). Much of the propaganda (http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/02/decision-to-use-atomic-bomb.html) associated with the official narrative can be traced to Stimson’s efforts, as documented by McGeorge Bundy."

Of course you want to ignore the past, because a repeated history of criminality undermines your bull$#@! nationalism and patriotic myth of self-defense. People like you are the reason government gets away with bull$#@!. You're short-sighted and don't give a $#@! about the victims of your mindless roboticism.

Ibid.

Ibid. Also, you're an imperialist warmonger.

I don't care what you regard worth discussing. You say stupid $#@! and I'll tear that ass up for everyone to see. The problem with neocons and warmongers in general is the nasty habit of proclaiming pure intentions like protection of our people while completely refusing to acknowledge historical evidence proving that to not be the case. It's a special type of sycophant to luv 'Murica to the extent that they don't want to be bothered with its track record when contemplating perpetual war in the name of self-defense.

No.

The fact that illegal wars have happened is not a reason to continue having them. That is retarded.

Oh look. More ultra-liberal chatter, violating rules going off topic into history (despite my advising against it). Bad! Bad!

Sounds like you're good with jihadists having nukes. HA HA. I've never heard anyone go that far into disreality before. Boy this is getting interesting. I wonder if you'll reveal who/what you are before long. As for fighting, you fight who fights you. And for people who believe in freedom and the US Constitution, that would be the Muslim loonies, of course.

Truman ? He's history (off topic) AGAIN, I'm having to tell you this thread pertains to the 21st century. Got it ?

A repeated history of criminality does NOT undermine nationalism and patriotic self-defense, one iota. I didn't support the Vietnam War, and I protested against it. I didn't support Reagan or the Contras. So ? None of that has a thing to do with what's happening NOW. Now we fight a valid war against a terrible enemy, founded in terrible ideology (masquerading as a religion). You're avoiding THAT. And if what you call mindless roboticism didn't exist, you wouldn't either, because the jihadists would already have added your head to their collection. The mindless roboticism is your mindless opposition to the self-defense war that America has been fighting, and it hasn't even been fighting it anywhere near enough.

To call a supporter of the Vietnam War a "warmonger" might have been valid. Same with the Contras. But 21st century war against Muslim Jihadists (the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Al Shabbab, et al) ???? To call that "warmongering" and "imperialist", is ludicrous. Imperialism is when you go to another country and dominate it, to obtain wealth. The US has not gotten wealth from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Donald trump used to say "We should have at least gotten their oil" We didn't get one drop. All we did, and are doing is preventing nuclear attack upon us as I explained in the OP, and which you are clearly IN DENIAL of.
PS- The USA is the # 1 VICTIM of imperialism in the world today ($123 Billion/year lost in remittances$$$ + tens of Billions$$ more in welfare payouts to immigrants) #123 Billion ? The Vikings would be envious. :geez:

The only ass you're tearing up in this thread is YOURS.

I'm not a "neocon". I'm an oldcon. See my avatar.

The problem with ultra-liberals, in general, is the nasty habit of proclaiming conservatives to have false intentions of protection of our people, by using historical evidence when that was not the case (ex. Vietnam), to try to scam us all into believing that the valid self-defense war of TODAY in the 21st century, against Muslim lunacy, can't be valid and self-defensive, simply because some old wars of the past weren't. Pretty flimsy. Maybe you should hire Bernie M or some other con artist to try to get your scams flying. (after you dig them out of the ground)

Protectionism - the process of protecting. Protectionist - one who protects. :icon_biggrin: YES!

So you know nothing of the War Powers Act ? If missles started raining down on American cities, you'd call Congress to vote to go to war ? Or you'd have the president order an immediate counterstrike ? If you chose the former, of these, you'd be to blame for the needless deaths of millions of Americans. As bad as I think Obama is as president, you'd be far worse. :geez:

Peter1469
01-06-2015, 10:19 PM
Under the War Powers Act, the President does not need to consult Congress to defend the US if we are attacked.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 10:22 PM
Under the War Powers Act, the President does not need to consult Congress to defend the US if we are attacked.

Correct. That's why I mentioned it, in the previous post.

Peter1469
01-06-2015, 10:24 PM
Correct. That's why I mentioned it, in the previous post. Oh you did? Sorry I must have missed it.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 10:32 PM
What we have now in Iraq (& likely in Afghanistan) is only helpful for Iran -
Invasion (of either country) with conventional military forces was out of the question - because in the long run - which is supposed to be our goal - the current mess is not in our (nor the West's) interest. & we weren't & aren't ready to commit to a WWII-level of effort, nor a Marshall Plan @ the end of it - to actually rebuild those countries in a form more palatable to us.

I guess I have to ask again, if you read the OP ?

1. What we have now in Iraq (& likely in Afghanistan) is NOT only helpful for Iran, it is critical for us in the USA, and more critical than any stationing of US troops we have ever done in our history. This was written in the OP.

2. We don't need to commit to a World War II level of effort, nor a Marshall Plan, nor is there any foreseeable " end of it", and the entire warring against Islamic jihad can only be seen as endless. This was written in the OP.

iustitia
01-06-2015, 10:34 PM
Oh look. More ultra-liberal chatter, violating rules going off topic into history (despite my advising against it). Bad! Bad!

Sounds like you're good with jihadists having nukes. HA HA. I've never heard anyone go that far into disreality before. Boy this is getting interesting. I wonder if you'll reveal who/what you are before long. As for fighting, you fight who fights you. And for people who believe in freedom and the US Constitution, that would be the Muslim loonies, of course.

Truman ? He's history (off topic) AGAIN, I'm having to tell you this thread pertains to the 21st century. Got it ?

A repeated history of criminality does NOT undermine nationalism and patriotic self-defense, one iota. I didn't support the Vietnam War, and I protested against it. I didn't support Reagan or the Contras. So ? None of that has a thing to do with what's happening NOW. Now we fight a valid war against a terrible enemy, founded in terrible ideology (masquerading as a religion). You're avoiding THAT. And if what you call mindless roboticism didn't exist, you wouldn't either, because the jihadists would already have added your head to their collection. The mindless roboticism is your mindless opposition to the self-defense war that America has been fighting, and it hasn't even been fighting it anywhere near enough.

To call a supporter of the Vietnam War a "warmonger" might have been valid. Same with the Contras. But 21st century war against Muslim Jihadists (the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Al Shabbab, et al) ???? To call that "warmongering" and "imperialist", is ludicrous. Imperialism is when you go to another country and dominate it, to obtain wealth. The US has not gotten wealth from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Donald trump used to say "We should have at least gotten their oil" We didn't get one drop. All we did, and are doing is preventing nuclear attack upon us as I explained in the OP, and which you are clearly IN DENIAL of.
PS- The USA is the # 1 VICTIM of imperialism in the world today ($123 Billion/year lost in remittances$$$ + tens of Billions$$ more in welfare payouts to immigrants) #123 Billion ? The Vikings would be envious. :geez:

The only ass you're tearing up in this thread is YOURS.

I'm not a "neocon". I'm an oldcon. See my avatar.

The problem with ultra-liberals, in general, is the nasty habit of proclaiming conservatives to have false intentions of protection of our people, by using historical evidence when that was not the case (ex. Vietnam), to try to scam us all into believing that the valid self-defense war of TODAY in the 21st century, against Muslim lunacy, can't be valid and self-defensive, simply because some old wars of the past weren't. Pretty flimsy. Maybe you should hire Bernie M or some other con artist to try to get your scams flying. (after you dig them out of the ground)

Protectionism - the process of protecting. Protectionist - one who protects. :icon_biggrin: YES!

So you know nothing of the War Powers Act ? If missles started raining down on American cities, you'd call Congress to vote to go to war ? Or you'd have the president order an immediate counterstrike ? If you chose the former, of these, you'd be to blame for the needless deaths of millions of Americans. As bad as I think Obama is as president, you'd be far worse. :geez:

You seem to be mixed up Sam I Am, I'm a conservative that's making rational arguments rooted in history and the Constitution. You're a guy with fucking Eisenhower as his avatar - the same dipshit that got us into this mess when he overthrew Iranian democracy for oil contracts and started screwing around with Muslim states near the Mediterranean. Eisenhower was not an "oldcon", he was a liberal internationalist. The "oldcons" or paleocons opposed intervention and guys like Taft fought it. This is just another example of you not knowing a damn thing while spewing bullshit nationalist platitudes.

If you were actually a conservative you'd revere history and learn from the mistakes of our foreign policies which create the monsters you want to sacrifice Americans to fight against. You'd also respect the power of culture and stop pushing a foreign influence into the Middle East that isn't welcomed there. But idiotically you're going to shit your pants when history is brought up because it completely undermines the patriotic mythology needed to prop up warmongering and militarism.

History isn't off-topic just because it makes your arguments look stupid or you look like a tool for sharing them. As for the War Powers Act, it's unconstitutional and pretty incoherent. But that would require a willingness to read the Constitution rather than accepting national dogma. You want to fight durka durka's? Fine. Have Congress declare war and suit up. Or have them issue letters of marque and reprisal and you can hop on a boat and head over like Dog the Bounty Hunter. Or be an adult and use diplomacy instead of wasting lives and resources hunting for ghosts.

And maybe I'm being a cock right, but I don't see how on Earth the history of our adventurism and Middle Eastern history don't factor into discussion of our current foreign policy. Am I wrong @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)?

protectionist
01-06-2015, 10:35 PM
The oil industry is the one private sector entity I would consider a discussion on nationalizing.

A worthy idea, but I don't see it's connection to the quote you quoted. No big deal though. Whatever.

Peter1469
01-06-2015, 10:39 PM
The rules allow for natural deviation from a topic. But adding a historical perspective in this context is not a deviation, imo.

Carry on.

iustitia
01-06-2015, 10:42 PM
The rules allow for natural deviation from a topic. But adding a historical perspective in this context is not a deviation, imo.

Carry on.

Smashing. :afro:

protectionist
01-06-2015, 10:52 PM
1. Pakistan doesn't have any oil, TMK - & yet they went nuclear.

4. I would have said force rather than terrorism - but yah, we've invaded lots of places in our time. Look up the topic. & quite often, we dressed up the action in pleasant fictions - but dead is dead, & we have a fair amount of blame to shoulder - if we ever allow ourselves to see it.

5. Pakistan - Pakistan went nuclear because we (Prexies Carter/Reagan, Saudi, etc.) allowed them to skim off the arms, materials, money we raised for the Mujahedeen to fight against the Soviets & their puppet gov. in Afghanistan. They also had capable physicists, some outside help, & a good cadre of engineers, infrastructure, & Western firms/govs. willing to sell them whatever they needed. The US & everyone involved knew that Pakistan was skimming off, & we also knew that the Pakistani ISI was only delivering aid (we allowed that too - insult to injury) to those groups they were cultivating - for defense in depth - in other words, getting ready for their next loss to Indian military - to have a place to retreat to. We also knew that Pakistan was Jonesing for their own nuke force - & we went on plowing money & materials through ISI hands anyway. Our WOT was yet another blast of money to Pakistan, & has gone to substantially the same cause - only now, they're trying to fabricate an in-house delivery system for their nukes, & likely trying to miniaturize their warheads for missile use.

7. & 8. Pakistan doesn't have a delivery system that can reach us. Yah, we need to keep an eye on that - but India is doing that also. Israel, too - as they don't want to be a target of a live nuke anymore than we do - & Israel is a likelier target, if things go completely wrong in Pakistan.

1. Sure, a country can go nuclear without the wealth of oil, but with that wealth, they can do it easier and faster, and what Pakistan did in the latter decades of the 20th century, may not be as easy to do now, for a country (or loon group like ISIS) to do without big wealth.

4. Yes we did Vietnam (bad). We did the Contras (bad) But I have to resist the temptation to allow myself to go astray from TOPIC, which is confined to the 21st century, and the US defense against jihadist aggression (esp. Nuclear & Biological)

5. Good detailing of the instability of Pakistan I mentioned. Thanks.

7. Pakistan could nuke us in a variety of ways. They could deliver nuclear bombs in shipping containers, which Lou Dobbs exposed a few years ago, were being inspected in our ports to a frightening level of 5%. Also, most of "our" ports on US coastlines are owned by foreign entities, not US. They could also smuggle nukes in across the Canadian or Mexican border, or even bring them in at coastlines that are undeveloped for porting (as I see illegal aliens coming here in Tampa Bay, from time to time, and no one stopping them). It has also been said that Pakistan could fire nukes into the US from cargo ships, right off our shorelines. This would probably be a suicide mission, but jihadists have been known to have little aversion to that.

protectionist
01-06-2015, 10:56 PM
The rules allow for natural deviation from a topic. But adding a historical perspective in this context is not a deviation, imo.

Carry on.

That's cool. I'll just ignore it all, and stay on the topic. If others want to ramble into history, not my problem. It's sometimes used as a defense against having to confront the realities of the CURRENT situation we live in. The more they talk about the past, the less they're talking about the present/future. No problem.

iustitia
01-06-2015, 11:02 PM
http://i.imgur.com/47zBwTV.png

protectionist
01-06-2015, 11:06 PM
http://i.imgur.com/47zBwTV.png

Whatever makes an America-hater happy, one might guess. I'm afraid it's a little late to go after American warmongers though. That was the 60s and 80s. But some can't let go of past eras. Maybe they didn't do enough warmonger-bashing then, so they're trying to make up for it now (but in the wrong era) :rollseyes:

protectionist
01-06-2015, 11:21 PM
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/the-pentagons-secret-plans-to-secure-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal/

REALITY in the 21st century. :shocked:

Peter1469
01-07-2015, 05:10 AM
Using a nuke as an EMP weapon would be vastly more effective than blowing up a city like NYC.
1. Sure, a country can go nuclear without the wealth of oil, but with that wealth, they can do it easier and faster, and what Pakistan did in the latter decades of the 20th century, may not be as easy to do now, for a country (or loon group like ISIS) to do without big wealth.

4. Yes we did Vietnam (bad). We did the Contras (bad) But I have to resist the temptation to allow myself to go astray from TOPIC, which is confined to the 21st century, and the US defense against jihadist aggression (esp. Nuclear & Biological)

5. Good detailing of the instability of Pakistan I mentioned. Thanks.

7. Pakistan could nuke us in a variety of ways. They could deliver nuclear bombs in shipping containers, which Lou Dobbs exposed a few years ago, were being inspected in our ports to a frightening level of 5%. Also, most of "our" ports on US coastlines are owned by foreign entities, not US. They could also smuggle nukes in across the Canadian or Mexican border, or even bring them in at coastlines that are undeveloped for porting (as I see illegal aliens coming here in Tampa Bay, from time to time, and no one stopping them). It has also been said that Pakistan could fire nukes into the US from cargo ships, right off our shorelines. This would probably be a suicide mission, but jihadists have been known to have little aversion to that.

protectionist
01-08-2015, 05:06 AM
Using a nuke as an EMP weapon would be vastly more effective than blowing up a city like NYC.

Either way, it's catastrophe that Americans must be protected from.

donttread
01-08-2015, 07:21 AM
In the 70 year history of nukes , two facts remain
1) Only one country has ever been bat shit crazy enough to use them on people (including women and children) and they did so twice.
2) Nobody with nukes gets invaded

protectionist
01-08-2015, 07:11 PM
In the 70 year history of nukes , two facts remain
1) Only one country has ever been bat $#@! crazy enough to use them on people (including women and children) and they did so twice.
2) Nobody with nukes gets invaded

Nobody with nukes gets invaded, except that the mutual deterrence relationship dissolves, when you're talking about Muslim crazies for whom dying is a desirable thing.

Animal Mother
01-08-2015, 07:15 PM
Nobody with nukes gets invaded, except that the mutual deterrence relationship dissolves, when you're talking about Muslim crazies for whom dying is a desirable thing.

What makes them "crazies"? If someone was bombing your home, killing your women and children, invading and policing your lands, setting up a government for you, how happy would you be about it?

protectionist
01-08-2015, 08:19 PM
What makes them "crazies"? If someone was bombing your home, killing your women and children, invading and policing your lands, setting up a government for you, how happy would you be about it?

Looks like you have a LONGGGGGGGGGGG way to go in understanding this issue. You could start with the Koran, and it's hundreds of suras, advocating (if not commanding) mass genocide, massive amounts of sex discrimination against women, wife-beating, rape, pedophilia, slavery, torture/mutilation, religious intolerance, political intolerance, killing homosexuals, killing animals, etc.

You might also try reading up on the history of Muslim jihad. It's been going on for 1400 years, and has killed 270 million innocent people over the centuries. And you thought they were just mad about someone bombing your home, killing your women and children, invading and policing your lands, setting up a government for you > ALL IN SELF-DEFENSE.

EARTH TO AM: There are no people on earth crazier than Muslim jihadists, and you're the first person I've ever encountered in any forum in 10 years, that didn't know that. Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle) :geez:

PS - their suicidal character isn't exactly sane either. And guess what. They got that idea about the 72 virgins in paradise after they die, all wrong. Actually, it was one virgin, 72 years old. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Peter1469
01-08-2015, 08:33 PM
Several of us have spent lots of time over in Iraq and Afghanistan and don't need to be lectured to from an arm chair sitting in middle America.

We, and I am the least of them, know a lot more about this stuff than you and the other arm chair generals. So don't be offended if you get mocked and disregarded.


Looks like you have a LONGGGGGGGGGGG way to go in understanding this issue. You could start with the Koran, and it's hundreds of suras, advocating (if not commanding) mass genocide, massive amounts of sex discrimination against women, wife-beating, rape, pedophilia, slavery, torture/mutilation, religious intolerance, political intolerance, killing homosexuals, killing animals, etc.

You might also try reading up on the history of Muslim jihad. It's been going on for 1400 years, and has killed 270 million innocent people over the centuries. And you thought they were just mad about someone bombing your home, killing your women and children, invading and policing your lands, setting up a government for you > ALL IN SELF-DEFENSE.

EARTH TO AM: There are no people on earth crazier than Muslim jihadists, and you're the first person I've ever encountered in any forum in 10 years, that didn't know that. Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle) :geez:

PS - their suicidal character isn't exactly sane either. And guess what. They got that idea about the 72 virgins in paradise after they die, all wrong. Actually, it was one virgin, 72 years old. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

protectionist
01-08-2015, 08:48 PM
Several of us have spent lots of time over in Iraq and Afghanistan and don't need to be lectured to from an arm chair sitting in middle America.

We, and I am the least of them, know a lot more about this stuff than you and the other arm chair generals. So don't be offended if you get mocked and disregarded.

You can say anything you like, but if you mock what I say about Iraq and Afghanisitan, you'll only be mocking yourself. What I'm talking about is political, not specifically military, so unless you've been a lot of years in the US intelligence services, you have no rank over me in talking about the dangers involved with what US troops need to fight for today. Frankly, even if you did service in that capacity, you still couldn't mock my posts, because you'd be mocking the highest intelligence officers in America, which my posts contain in their links Try reading them.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/the-pentagons-secret-plans-to-secure-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal/

PS- I served 5 years in the military long before you did. And my "armchair", was the seat in an Army payloader, in the Army Corps of Engineers.

iustitia
01-08-2015, 09:00 PM
Funny because US intelligence is where the term 'blowback' originates.

No! Muh intelligence!

Peter1469
01-08-2015, 09:00 PM
Thank you for your service.


You can say anything you like, but if you mock what I say about Iraq and Afghanisitan, you'll only be mocking yourself. What I'm talking about is political, not specifically military, so unless you've been a lot of years in the US intelligence services, you have no rank over me in talking about the dangers involved with what US troops need to fight for today. Frankly, even if you did service in that capacity, you still couldn't mock my posts, because you'd be mocking the highest intelligence officers in America, which may posts contain in their links Try reading them.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/the-pentagons-secret-plans-to-secure-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal/

PS- I served 5 years in the military long before you did. And my "armchair", was the seat in an Army payloader, in the Army Corps of Engineers.

Captain Obvious
01-08-2015, 09:02 PM
Funny because US intelligence is where the term 'blowback' originates.

No! Muh intelligence!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blowback

blowback (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blowback&defid=169741)
To hold a marijuana joint in ones mouth between the lips with the hot end in the mouth while blowing smoke out of the hole at the other end into someone else's mouth, so as to get a big 'hit'
'Give us a blowback!'

protectionist
01-08-2015, 10:31 PM
Thank you for your service.

You're welcome.

protectionist
01-08-2015, 10:36 PM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blowback

blowback (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blowback&defid=169741)
To hold a marijuana joint in ones mouth between the lips with the hot end in the mouth while blowing smoke out of the hole at the other end into someone else's mouth, so as to get a big 'hit'
'Give us a blowback!'

The big hit will come slowly, over time > known as emphysema.

http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/emphysema/