Wars

We do, however, have a right to self-defense. For example, I have always believed that the initial invasion of Afghanistan was a justifiable act of self-defense. I also believe that remaining in that country until bin Laden could be found and dealt with was justified.

Furthermore, given the destructive power of nuclear weapons, the track record and extreme statements, statements of intention, by a government may justify preemptive action in self defense. And now that I think about it, I realize that many more countries in the world could be responsible stewards of nuclear weapons if they had them. There are only a few that absolutely should not possess them, and given their destructive power, I believe that is a defensible position to take.



That is the same as saying we may never condemn the actions of another country no matter what they do, for, being imperfect human beings, we will never have our own house in order to the satisfaction of everybody. No country does, and no country ever will.

The truth is, countries are in different degrees of imperfection. We are at least intelligent enough to discern that. The failings, inequities, and injustices of modern day Australia or the U.S. pale in comparison to those of North Korea. I can think of some very bad governments in the world that I would hate to live under, but none as horrible as North Korea's.



Ha! Then you haven't been to university in a while.

Academia is steeped in it, and they teach it. Our entire system is evil. Oh, and by the way, Shell ... Are you white? If you are, you are a racist. And if you don't think so, or if you are not aware of your racism, that is evidence of your racism. You probably always will be, and the only thing you can do is recognize it and apologize for it.

This is academia in the U.S. these days: America is evil. The economy is evil. Businesses are evil. Conservative people and their values are evil. And you, yes you, if you are white, are a racist.

My son served in the Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan. When he got out of the Marines, he went to university. He was totally focused on completing his degree program, and he deliberately avoided politics and debating this and that in his classes. When he would hear various professors running down our country, he just kept his mouth shut. He was a straight A student and graduated with honors. But one time in his senior year, his teacher started out the lecture with the utter evil of America, comparing the U.S. with the worst regimes in history and the modern world. It was the straw that broke the camel's back.

He stood up and interrupted, "Whoa, whoa, whoa!", he told me later. And he proceeded to speak for about 3 or 4 minutes. And he told about other countries he had been in and about the unspeakable horrors he had seen perpetrated by people of those countries against their own people, specifically women. I know the stories he witnessed and recounted, and I am choosing not to write them here, for they are the acts of the incurably demented, they shock the conscience, they are so horrible. He finished by telling the professor that she didn't know what she was talking about and that she should be eternally thankful for being born in America.

She had stood there silently while he spoke, and, believe it or not, my son said she thanked him for saying what he said. After class, many students approached him and thanked him for speaking up. True story.

Seth 🇺🇸
I will get to you soon Seth. And thanks in advance for sharing.
 
Government shutdowns are common in America politics - it's an institutional one
Is this what you are going to tell those 800,000 thousand federal workers, who were not paid for over a month? That it is just a common, or an institutional thing? I'm sure that bit of knowledge will pay the bills, and end their suffering. Just because Trump wanted his way, and was having a tantrum.
 
We do, however, have a right to self-defense. For example, I have always believed that the initial invasion of Afghanistan was a justifiable act of self-defense. I also believe that remaining in that country until bin Laden could be found and dealt with was justified.

Furthermore, given the destructive power of nuclear weapons, the track record and extreme statements, statements of intention, by a government may justify preemptive action in self defense. And now that I think about it, I realize that many more countries in the world could be responsible stewards of nuclear weapons if they had them. There are only a few that absolutely should not possess them, and given their destructive power, I believe that is a defensible position to take.
Lets start with the basics first. Every country has the right to protect itself against any imminent, immediate, and actual threat to its sovereignty, its borders, its people, and to protect its own way of life(culture, customs, and norms). This is always a given. Being a nuclear armed country, was meant to be the ultimate deterrent to being attacked by another country. No country would dare attack a nuclear armed country. Even another nuclear armed country. And, for the last 75 years(1945) no country has ever attacked a nuclear armed country, or the military allies of a nuclear armed country. N. Korea has attacked zero countries since 1950. It is a country that preaches isolationism and self-reliance. It has been a Republic since 1948. It has the lowest number of nukes(15-40) than any of the 9 nuclear armed nations. It is a country that has seen what happens to countries that are controlled by the US. Or when the US is finished with them. They simply do not trust any nations, because each nation has its own agenda. It is because of their defiance, that they are being sanctioned and demonized, under the guise of how they treat their people. This is a page out of the same playbook as with other leaders and countries. Stay out of it. Stop provoking this country. Stop looking for excuses to escalate and attack this country. Bolton and Pompeo said they could take Iran, N. Korea, and China, all in a week. Stop using this fake moral outrage, and misinformation as a precursor to justify our future action. In reality it is only a virtual fear that we are actioning. It's like using God(or religion) as an excuse to justify our actions. In the end. we may all suffer.

There are two countries that are not the best stewards of nuclear weapons. The US and Israel. The US because it is the only country to detonate two nukes, kill 100's of thousands in Japan, and is engaged in 134 conflicts all over the world(or just 6 wars).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States

The other country is Israel. It is the only nuclear country to plan an attack on another nuclear country(Pakistan). It even tried to enlist the aid of another nuclear country(India) to help them. Of course India told them to piss off and put their plans on hold indefinitely. Israel also collaborated with Saudi Arabia to get America to attack Iran. These two counties have demonstrated that they are only interested in power and control. And, would even risk destroying the world to get it. The evidence supporting American Imperialism, and its Capitalist Expansionism is overwhelming and verifiable(thanks to the freedom of information act). So, MYOB, and leave this country alone. Lets not do what Admiral Yamamoto wrote in his diary, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”. You do not attack a country, in the fear of something that they might do. Please no more false analogies. We are talking about the destruction of millions of people, because of our fears.

So, yes we do have the right to protect our country from any external(or internal) threat to our sovereignty. But as Ike rightly pointed out, beware of the military industrial complex. Think about it. You are a government contractor, contracted to make better weapons to cause the greatest amount of damage to another human being, while sitting in a place of absolute safety. But, if there are no wars to use these weapons, and no people or countries to destroy, then eventually there will be no more need for your services. So, creating the need for your services becomes paramount for your survival. This is one of the driving force(among others) behind regime-change wars, foreign covert operations, paid proxy-wars, Arms selling, demonizing and provocative rhetoric, US- backed coups, and US sponsored terrorism.

That is the same as saying we may never condemn the actions of another country no matter what they do, for, being imperfect human beings, we will never have our own house in order to the satisfaction of everybody. No country does, and no country ever will.
You can criticize all you like. But we are talking about actioning on those criticism. There is a certain degree of hypocrisy here that I am trying to highlight. We don't sanction Israel for their human rights abuses, or Saudi Arabia for their sponsoring of terrorism all over the world. Why? Is there a double standard here? The other point I try to highlight, is that we would not want other countries to judge our human rights history, or even our election system. There are many countries that openly hate America's guts, for killing their families, occupying their territory, de-stabilizing their government, insulting their culture and customs, and stealing their resources. Do you think that killing a high ranking Iranian general, and 9 other Iraqi citizens, bragging about it, telling two countries that hated him before doing it, not telling the United Nations or it Security Council beforehand, and providing zero evidence to support the urgent nature of the actions, is a country that exercises restraint and non-interference?

The truth is, countries are in different degrees of imperfection. We are at least intelligent enough to discern that. The failings, inequities, and injustices of modern day Australia or the U.S. pale in comparison to those of North Korea. I can think of some very bad governments in the world that I would hate to live under, but none as horrible as North Korea's.
Seth you do not live in those countries. Hence you opinions are subjective, and clouded by what you are being told. If no country is perfect, then by extension, no country is perfectly evil as well. As long as N. Korea poses no real actual threat to America, how they treat their citizens is none of my business. If they choose NOT to destroy their nukes, then that it is their right. We have many early warning systems in place, and the capability of total annihilation if they did launch any attack on our sovereignty, or on our allies. They are also counting on the US not attacking them, because of their own nuclear capability. If you want N. Korea to get rid of its nukes, then you are going to have to kill them all. There is no other alternative.

I will address your remarks about academia, and the experience your son had. I also am a war vet, and can identify with your son. I also attended Uni as a pure academic. I wanted to learn everything about everything. Which was over 11 years of Uni. As well as having a full time vocation.

Tertiary institutions pride themselves in the exchange of all information. This information should always be based on factual, and verifiable evidence. The only question I would have is, were the comments by the professors based on facts, or just on their beliefs? The inconvenient truth is always unpleasant and hard to hear. But being ignorant of the truth, as a people, is far worse. I remember walking out of my final history exam, because part of the exam included my comments on a war film, that was showing gruesome deaths. I was waiting in the hall, when the teacher came out and apologized, and told me I could take the exam again at her place. I passed.

Academia is steeped in it, and they teach it. Our entire system is evil. Oh, and by the way, Shell ... Are you white? If you are, you are a racist. And if you don't think so, or if you are not aware of your racism, that is evidence of your racism. You probably always will be, and the only thing you can do is recognize it and apologize for it.
Yes I am. I am no racists. But I can understand why Black Americans would feel that I am. I won't go through the reconstruction era, or the civil rights movements, voting rights, or the very clear attitudes and abuses that my people inflicted upon Black Americans. Here's a story I remember,

Remember the Sixty Minute news reporting show? Ed Bradley went back to the South to report on how the South was changing due to integration laws, civil right mandates, and equal opportunity laws. He visited a doctors office in an affluent city, in a southern state I can't remember. He saw people in the waiting room, which was well decorated and furnished with comfortable furniture, magazines and even a television to watch. But he noticed there were no Black Americans in the waiting room. He asked the receptionist, and she said she didn't know why. There was an odd colored door just to the side of the service entry door. Ed asked, "Where does this door go? The receptionist said she didn't know. Ed opened the door, and went down the stairs. At the bottom, was an unfurnished, unwindowed room with only a bench in the center. There was an elderly Black woman sitting on the bench. Ed asked her if she was allowed to sit in the waiting room upstairs? She said, "Yes sir.". He then aske why she would not go upstairs and wait in the waiting room? She told him, "No, no sir. It is not allowed." This is what I called the rape of the mind. It will take many generation's to repair this damage.

Remember, all of our amendments were enacted because of the abuses of an imperfect society. It took publicized lynching, and dogs attacking protesters, to get the attention of northern sympathizers and intellectuals. Even with all the blatant abuses, it took the killing of White activists, to really get the ball rolling. I am certainly no bigot, but I certainly know a few who are. And, if you think many cops don't use Blacks as their red badge of courage, or that many Whites don't demonize, stereotype, and ridicule Black Americans behind their backs, then we travel in different circles. There is no rational excuse for racism and bigotry, since NO ONECHOOSES THEIR PARENTS, OR THEIR PLACE OF BIRTH.

This is academia in the U.S. these days: America is evil. The economy is evil. Businesses are evil. Conservative people and their values are evil. And you, yes you, if you are white, are a racist.
No country is pure evil, or evil period. That is a reification fallacy. Countries are NOT things. Only people can be inherently evil, not countries. You are trying to assign human traits to an entire country. There may be an assumption that by being White, means that I am a racist. This assumption is historically justified by Black Americans. The golden rule has so far served me well. Tempered with a good supply of caution, paranoia, and common sense.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Lets start with the basics first. Every country has the right to protect itself against any imminent, immediate, and actual threat to its sovereignty, its borders, its people, and to protect its own way of life(culture, customs, and norms). This is always a given. Being a nuclear armed country, was meant to be the ultimate deterrent to being attacked by another country. No country would dare attack a nuclear armed country.
No rational, sane leader would dare attack the U.S. with nukes. Your words are those of a rational, sane person. I am confident of that. That doesn't mean that I should extend that confidence to all people. And I am unlikely to start trusting an all-powerful despot who demands, under penalty of death, that his people worship him like a god.

It is a country that has seen what happens to countries that are controlled by the US. Or when the US is finished with them.
Like South Korea - modern, industrious, high standard of living, democratic institutions.
Like Japan - same as above
Like Germany - reunified, democratic institutions, the economic leader of Europe

They simply do not trust any nations, because each nation has its own agenda. It is because of their defiance, that they are being sanctioned and demonized, under the guise of how they treat their people.
No, you're conflating two different things. North Korea may rightly be demonized for its treatment of its people. But the sanctions are about the weapons, not the treatment of its people. The way North Korea treats their own people reflects poorly on their leader and does nothing to build confidence, but the sanctions are specifically about the nuclear weapons.

There are two countries that are not the best stewards of nuclear weapons. The US and Israel. The US because it is the only country to detonate two nukes, kill 100's of thousands in Japan, and is engaged in 134 conflicts all over the world(or just 6 wars).
I don't want to deflect to a discussion or debate on WW2, but that use of nuclear weapons brought the war to a quick end and, while the bombs killed hundreds of thousands, bringing the war to an end probably saved the lives of many more, perhaps millions.

The other country is Israel. It is the only nuclear country to plan an attack on another nuclear country(Pakistan). It even tried to enlist the aid of another nuclear country(India) to help them. Of course India told them to piss off and put their plans on hold indefinitely. Israel also collaborated with Saudi Arabia to get America to attack Iran. These two counties have demonstrated that they are only interested in power and control. And, would even risk destroying the world to get it. The evidence supporting American Imperialism, and its Capitalist Expansionism is overwhelming and verifiable(thanks to the freedom of information act). So, MYOB, and leave this country alone. Lets not do what Admiral Yamamoto wrote in his diary, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”. You do not attack a country, in the fear of something that they might do. Please no more false analogies. We are talking about the destruction of millions of people, because of our fears.
I don't believe the U.S. wants to provoke a war with Iran.

So, yes we do have the right to protect our country from any external(or internal) threat to our sovereignty. But as Ike rightly pointed out, beware of the military industrial complex. Think about it. You are a government contractor, contracted to make better weapons to cause the greatest amount of damage to another human being, while sitting in a place of absolute safety. But, if there are no wars to use these weapons, and no people or countries to destroy, then eventually there will be no more need for your services. So, creating the need for your services becomes paramount for your survival. This is one of the driving force(among others) behind regime-change wars, foreign covert operations, paid proxy-wars, Arms selling, demonizing and provocative rhetoric, US- backed coups, and US sponsored terrorism.
Of course weapons manufacturers are going to constantly improve those weapons systems and sell them. As a result, the U.S. is the best equipped military in the world. I wouldn't wish to change that. Even if there were "no people or countries to destroy", as you put it, that effort would and should continue. I personally don't believe that the decisions to go to war that have been made in modern history were driven by a profit motive. There surely were profits to be made by the manufacturers, but I don't think those were the overriding reasons the U.S. has engaged wars. I do, however, believe that the fall of the Soviet Union gave rise to arrogance in some quarters of our government. Our success in kicking the Iraqis out of Kuwait only heightened that arrogance. That arrogance became a doctrine that the U.S. had a prerogative, a moral imperative, a duty to simply start deciding who may have power and who may not. Hence, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the war against Libya, and the proxy war against Syria we supported. I strongly oppose this thinking, this doctrine.

You can criticize all you like. But we are talking about actioning on those criticism. There is a certain degree of hypocrisy here that I am trying to highlight. We don't sanction Israel for their human rights abuses, or Saudi Arabia for their sponsoring of terrorism all over the world. Why? Is there a double standard here? The other point I try to highlight, is that we would not want other countries to judge our human rights history, or even our election system. There are many countries that openly hate America's guts, for killing their families, occupying their territory, de-stabilizing their government, insulting their culture and customs, and stealing their resources. Do you think that killing a high ranking Iranian general, and 9 other Iraqi citizens, bragging about it, telling two countries that hated him before doing it, not telling the United Nations or it Security Council beforehand, and providing zero evidence to support the urgent nature of the actions, is a country that exercises restraint and non-interference?
I thought the killing of Gen. Soleimani was a legitimate act of self defense. If the argument against is that there is no proof that he was pulling the strings of the Shiite militias who were attacking our troops, and attacking our embassy, then that's burying one's head in the sand. It's like covering one's ears and yelling "La la la la!"

I'm going to stop here and respond to the rest of your reply in another post. The discussion of North Korea reminded me of an old George Carlin bit.

 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth you do not live in those countries. Hence you opinions are subjective, and clouded by what you are being told. If no country is perfect, then by extension, no country is perfectly evil as well. As long as N. Korea poses no real actual threat to America, how they treat their citizens is none of my business. If they choose NOT to destroy their nukes, then that it is their right. We have many early warning systems in place, and the capability of total annihilation if they did launch any attack on our sovereignty, or on our allies. They are also counting on the US not attacking them, because of their own nuclear capability. If you want N. Korea to get rid of its nukes, then you are going to have to kill them all. There is no other alternative.
I think it is possible to be evil and not even realize it. Hitler probably didn't think the annihilation of the Jews was evil. The Japanese probably didn't think their war crimes were evil. Both justified these things in their minds. Shell, no country - its people is the "country" - is perfectly evil. But it is possible, and born out by history, that certain leaders can be extremely evil.

My opinions about NK are not really subjective. There is ample evidence. More than ample.

I also don't accept that it is impossible to get NK to get rid of their nukes short of killing them all. I think Trump made a good faith effort to get that ball rolling. I think he shared his vision with Kim of a peaceful, prosperous, and secure North Korea, and he showed him a lot of respect. I would have liked for Trump to have taken a first step to show good faith. A small but real gesture. We have an Army division in South Korea. I would have liked to have seen him withdraw one of its battalions as a show of good faith. But, in any case, I think the effort was worth while and should be continued.

I will address your remarks about academia, and the experience your son had. I also am a war vet, and can identify with your son. I also attended Uni as a pure academic. I wanted to learn everything about everything. Which was over 11 years of Uni. As well as having a full time vocation.

Tertiary institutions pride themselves in the exchange of all information. This information should always be based on factual, and verifiable evidence. The only question I would have is, were the comments by the professors based on facts, or just on their beliefs? The inconvenient truth is always unpleasant and hard to hear. But being ignorant of the truth, as a people, is far worse. I remember walking out of my final history exam, because part of the exam included my comments on a war film, that was showing gruesome deaths. I was waiting in the hall, when the teacher came out and apologized, and told me I could take the exam again at her place. I passed.
Shell, I wasn't there in class with my son, so I don't know if this was framed as merely her opinion or if she supported it with facts. Nevertheless, academia is steeped in this anti-American dogma.

Yes I am. I am no racists. But I can understand why Black Americans would feel that I am.
Shell, it's not just Black Americans. This belief has been adopted by white progressive liberal professors that infest our universities. You don't seem to understand that if you deny your own racism, these people will use that as proof of it. "Internalized Racial Superiority" is what you're guilty of. They say that racism is not your fault, but you are responsible for it. Etc, etc, etc.

There is no rational excuse for racism and bigotry, since NO ONE CHOOSES THEIR PARENTS, OR THEIR PLACE OF BIRTH.
You know that, and I know that. People should be judged by the "content of their character" (Martin Luther King), not the color of their skin. I think of black citizens as my fellow Americans, and for those who want a hand up, it should be offered. But these progressive liberals would say that I have "internalized racial superiority" and cite aspects of my life as proof of it.

No country is pure evil, or evil period. That is a reification fallacy. Countries are NOT things. Only people can be inherently evil, not countries. You are trying to assign human traits to an entire country.
No, I'm not. I don't disagree with those statements.

Seth
 
Like South Korea - modern, industrious, high standard of living, democratic institutions.
Like Japan - same as above
Like Germany - reunified, democratic institutions, the economic leader of Europe
In reality, S. Korea was completely bought and paid for by the US, with a government that they helped establish. Both Japan and Germany were casualties of WAR. And, both surrendered unconditionally. My comments were referring to countries since WWII and the Korean War. Sorry, if that wasn't made clearer. Can you name any country SINCE these wars(1953 - present), that is better off after US interference than before their interference? Maybe you can also point to any African, S. American, or Middle Eastern countries, that N. Korea has attacked or has meddled into their affairs? Now compare that list to America!!

No rational, sane leader would dare attack the U.S. with nukes. Your words are those of a rational, sane person. I am confident of that. That doesn't mean that I should extend that confidence to all people. And I am unlikely to start trusting an all-powerful despot who demands, under penalty of death, that his people worship him like a god.
How many countries HAVE ever attacked a nuclear armed country? I'm under no illusion that anything I say, or any facts or logic I present, can ever change the rationale behind your fears and beliefs. I get it, them bad, threaten me, take away their big guns. We simply compartmentalize information differently. I also think your characterization of the people's worship of Kim, is a bit over simplistic. There are many people who certainly don't worship Kim, and are NOT being killed. Did you know that the late Billy Graham also claimed that Kim Jung-un was a God on earth? https://www.cato.org/publications/c...od-kim-jong-uns-cult-personality-going-strong

No, you're conflating two different things. North Korea may rightly be demonized for its treatment of its people. But the sanctions are about the weapons, not the treatment of its people. The way North Korea treats their own people reflects poorly on their leader and does nothing to build confidence, but the sanctions are specifically about the nuclear weapons.
I agree with some of your comments here, but not others. I agree that N. Korea is being demonized for the treatment of its people, and for its government's ideology. I also agree that the sanctions should be only about the nukes, and not about the people and the ideology. But again, both are NOT the concerns of any other sovereign nations. So, tell me, why are we telling another sovereign country to destroy all of its nukes? Why are we sanctioning another sovereign country, to force them to destroy all of their nukes? Other than the way they treat their people, run their government, preach isolationism and self-reliance, make threats under provocation, or worship their leader as a demi-god, what exactly IS the reason? And, what is the rationale behind that reasoning? Sorry, I can only conclude, that we don't want them to have nukes, because we don't like the way they are, or the way they treat their people. It seems just that simple to me.

I don't want to deflect to a discussion or debate on WW2, but that use of nuclear weapons brought the war to a quick end and, while the bombs killed hundreds of thousands, bringing the war to an end probably saved the lives of many more, perhaps millions.
I will avoid that debate, because the facts are quite clear. The war was over weeks before the dropping of the bombs. Japan had announced that it was seeking peace through various diplomatic channels(testimonies, wired recordings, memorandums, files and records, etc.). The delay was in the terms of the surrender. The Japanese only requested that their Emperor, would not be arrested and imprisoned. The US refused, and mandated that only an unconditional surrender would be accepted. However, after the dropping of the bomb, surprise, the US did agrees to this request. Clearly the intent was not to save more innocent Japanese lives, was it?. And, since the Japanese had nothing left to fight with, the allies lives were not at any risk either. This was just an opportunity for the US to send a warning to Russia(current supported theory) that the US will use nukes to protect its interests. And, don't mess with us. Do you know why Russia backed down during the Cuban-Missile Crisis?

I don't believe the U.S. wants to provoke a war with Iran.
I agree with you about AMERICA not wanting to provoke a war with Iran. But Israel and Saudi Arabia do want a war with Iran. But their armies are no match for the Iranians. So they need to convinced America that fighting their war, is also in their best interests as well. Do you think that if Israel attacks Iran and asks America to help them, that America would refuse? And, because America is now Saudi Arabia's bitch($110 per year in Arms deals), they are now complicit in the war crimes in Yemen. Again, I will provide the information why America must do what the Saudis tell them to do. Remember, this is the same country that financed the terrorist that flew planes into buildings, that killed 3,000 American citizens. And, the human rights abuses committed by Zionist Imperialist Israel is almost just as bad. Did you know that bin Laden's family members, and other Saudi nationals were allowed to leave the US when there was a total ban on all aircrafts in the air, during 911?


Of course weapons manufacturers are going to constantly improve those weapons systems and sell them. As a result, the U.S. is the best equipped military in the world. I wouldn't wish to change that. Even if there were "no people or countries to destroy", as you put it, that effort would and should continue. I personally don't believe that the decisions to go to war that have been made in modern history were driven by a profit motive. There surely were profits to be made by the manufacturers, but I don't think those were the overriding reasons the U.S. has engaged wars. I do, however, believe that the fall of the Soviet Union gave rise to arrogance in some quarters of our government. Our success in kicking the Iraqis out of Kuwait only heightened that arrogance. That arrogance became a doctrine that the U.S. had a prerogative, a moral imperative, a duty to simply start deciding who may have power and who may not. Hence, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the war against Libya, and the proxy war against Syria we supported. I strongly oppose this thinking, this doctrine.

I certainly agree with the arrogance part of your comments. Except, I think you are being too kind in your comments. I think distain would be more accurate. Arms manufacturers improve their weapons because they are competing for a bigger slice of the government's pie. The danger as Ike puts it, is that the military industrial complex will begin to influence government policy decisions, and will mold whatever public opinion it needs to protect its own interests and profit margin. This is what we see today. This is what the evidence shows. If the manufacturers are not competing for more profits, by building better weapons to kill more people more efficiently, then what exactly is their motive? World peace? We may be the the most modern military in the world, but at what cost? When is enough enough? How many times do we need to blow up the earth. Isn't 4,000 nukes enough? What do you think would happen if we just took a quarter of the trillion dollars we spend this year on the military, and spend it on addressing our urgent domestic and environmental crisis/issues? Only Saudi Arabia, Israel, N. Korea, China, and Russia spend a higher percentage of their GDP on their military than the US. But America spends more total dollars than the top 8 militaries combined.

.

Tell me, why did we go to war with Iraq? Because Iraq invaded Kuwait? Why did Iraq invade Kuwait? Think again.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/23/...ittle-reason-not-to-mount-kuwait-assault.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...iraqs-invasion-of-kuwait-still-haunts-region/

I thought the killing of Gen. Soleimani was a legitimate act of self defense. If the argument against is that there is no proof that he was pulling the strings of the Shiite militias who were attacking our troops, and attacking our embassy, then that's burying one's head in the sand. It's like covering one's ears and yelling "La la la la!"
No. The question was never about if Soleimani was pulling the strings(straw man). The question was providing the evidence, that supports the claim that American lives were ever in imminent/immediate deadly threat. If you mean the attack on the American Embassy in Baghdad, by the PMF Iraqi Shia(and Sunni) state funded militia, then it had nothing to do with Gen Soleimani(Iranian). The embassy was warned, suffered minor property damage, and only one person was slightly injured. But, it did have everything to do with the American airstrikes targeting five Kata'ib Hezbollah locations. And, the PMF weapon storage facilities, and other command and control locations, in both Iraq and Syria. Not Iran. With all due and sincere respect, you are smarter than this. You can at least see the precedence that America's actions could set. Other country's can now justify attacking/killing foreign citizens in any foreign countries, as long as they can claim self-defense. This is why verifiable evidence and rational justification is so crucial. Trump has used his military to murder people in another country, and couldn't care less about the consequences of his actions. And all Americans are now complicit in his blatant murder. We lost our best hope of a savior, when we lost Tulsi to a smear campaign that undermined our democracy. Now we have only 2 brain dead choices. Maybe she will run again if we are still around.

Anyway, lets just look at the facts. Iran is not at war with the USA. The US never advised the the UN or its Security Council about this immediate and immediate threat? Yet America did have time to advise Israel and Saudi Arabia, and even get their blessings for the go-ahead. Congress was never notified, and no congressional approval was ever sought. The Trump regime simply decided that murdering 10 foreign nationals in a foreign country, was the best possible option for its agenda. If this was such an obvious act of self defense, then the evidence should also be just as obvious. Why was Pompeo so wishy washy, and condescending in his answers? Is this what you call acting in self-defense?

"At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani," read the statement, which added that Soleimani "was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.".

Is this all that is needed to claim self-defense, and justify the murder of a foreign citizen? Think God all the authoritarian dictatorial despots that follow this misguided self-serving logic are all dead(except Trump). You do realize that we are IN THEIR country killing their people, and disrespecting their culture and customs? Why are we blaming them every time they try to fight back? Now this is arrogance. I think that getting out of the Middle East is the first step we need to take, if we really want to save American lives.
 
I think it is possible to be evil and not even realize it. Hitler probably didn't think the annihilation of the Jews was evil. The Japanese probably didn't think their war crimes were evil. Both justified these things in their minds. Shell, no country - its people is the "country" - is perfectly evil. But it is possible, and born out by history, that certain leaders can be extremely evil.

My opinions about NK are not really subjective. There is ample evidence. More than ample.

I also don't accept that it is impossible to get NK to get rid of their nukes short of killing them all. I think Trump made a good faith effort to get that ball rolling. I think he shared his vision with Kim of a peaceful, prosperous, and secure North Korea, and he showed him a lot of respect. I would have liked for Trump to have taken a first step to show good faith. A small but real gesture. We have an Army division in South Korea. I would have liked to have seen him withdraw one of its battalions as a show of good faith. But, in any case, I think the effort was worth while and should be continued.



Shell, I wasn't there in class with my son, so I don't know if this was framed as merely her opinion or if she supported it with facts. Nevertheless, academia is steeped in this anti-American dogma.



Shell, it's not just Black Americans. This belief has been adopted by white progressive liberal professors that infest our universities. You don't seem to understand that if you deny your own racism, these people will use that as proof of it. "Internalized Racial Superiority" is what you're guilty of. They say that racism is not your fault, but you are responsible for it. Etc, etc, etc.



You know that, and I know that. People should be judged by the "content of their character" (Martin Luther King), not the color of their skin. I think of black citizens as my fellow Americans, and for those who want a hand up, it should be offered. But these progressive liberals would say that I have "internalized racial superiority" and cite aspects of my life as proof of it.



No, I'm not. I don't disagree with those statements.

Seth
I will address this later today. you do make a lot of good points.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Can you name any country SINCE these wars(1953 - present), that is better off after US interference than before their interference?
Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait

I agree with some of your comments here, but not others. I agree that N. Korea is being demonized for the treatment of its people, and for its government's ideology. I also agree that the sanctions should be only about the nukes, and not about the people and the ideology. But again, both are NOT the concerns of any other sovereign nations.
We have a fundamental disagreement on this that is probably not resolvable.

So, tell me, why are we telling another sovereign country to destroy all of its nukes? Why are we sanctioning another sovereign country, to force them to destroy all of their nukes? Other than the way they treat their people, run their government, preach isolationism and self-reliance, make threats under provocation, or worship their leader as a demi-god, what exactly IS the reason? And, what is the rationale behind that reasoning? Sorry, I can only conclude, that we don't want them to have nukes, because we don't like the way they are, or the way they treat their people. It seems just that simple to me.
Four reasons I can think of....

(1) Just as South Korea is under the nuclear umbrella of the United States, so also is North Korea under the nuclear umbrella of both Russia and China. A logical question then is why does NK want nukes? In a war between the North and South using only conventional weapons, both countries would be destroyed, and both would suffer millions of dead. And this leads right into #2 ...

(2) North Korea's nuclear weapons create an imbalance of power between North and South Korea.

(3) North Korean ICBMs that can reach the U.S. are unacceptable. Why? Because I don't share your confidence that NK is just any other nation. Putin is a thug. The Chinese Communist Party is what it is. But neither presents an apocalyptic vision in its propaganda. Neither presents as irrational. Ruthless, but not irrational. I don't share your confidence in the reliability and rationality of the North Korean regime. You are assigning your rationality to them, an opinion I don't share. This enforced worship of a dynasty and now, in particular this leader, reminds me of the Jim Jones cult.

(4) Nuclear ICBMs that could utterly destroy us also open the door for another potential scenario, and that is nuclear blackmail. At some future date, North Korea could announce that it was taking over South Korea and demand that the South Korean military surrender. It could, at the same time, tell the U.S. not to interfere and that, if the U.S. takes any action, they will launch. My guess is that the U.S. would calculate that the destruction of the U.S. was not worth fighting for South Korea, and the South Koreans would have to surrender.

I share the opinion of those who believe that the Korean Peninsula should be nuclear free.

I certainly agree with the arrogance part of your comments. Except, I think you are being too kind in your comments. I think distain would be more accurate. Arms manufacturers improve their weapons because they are competing for a bigger slice of the government's pie. The danger as Ike puts it, is that the military industrial complex will begin to influence government policy decisions, and will mold whatever public opinion it needs to protect its own interests and profit margin. This is what we see today. This is what the evidence shows. If the manufacturers are not competing for more profits, by building better weapons to kill more people more efficiently, then what exactly is their motive? World peace? We may be the the most modern military in the world, but at what cost? When is enough enough? How many times do we need to blow up the earth. Isn't 4,000 nukes enough? What do you think would happen if we just took a quarter of the trillion dollars we spend this year on the military, and spend it on addressing our urgent domestic and environmental crisis/issues? Only Saudi Arabia, Israel, N. Korea, China, and Russia spend a higher percentage of their GDP on their military than the US. But America spends more total dollars than the top 8 militaries combined.
Yeah, 4000 nukes is crazy ... makes no sense. One tenth of that would serve as a credible deterrent.

I favor disengaging from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. Army (almost 1 million active, reserve, and NG) ($738 billion) reduced to the size of the Marine Corps (220,000 active and reserve) ($47 billion).

No. The question was never about if Soleimani was pulling the strings(straw man). The question was providing the evidence, that supports the claim that American lives were ever in imminent/immediate deadly threat. If you mean the attack on the American Embassy in Baghdad, by the PMF Iraqi Shia(and Sunni) state funded militia, then it had nothing to do with Gen Soleimani(Iranian). The embassy was warned, suffered minor property damage, and only one person was slightly injured. But, it did have everything to do with the American airstrikes targeting five Kata'ib Hezbollah locations. And, the PMF weapon storage facilities, and other command and control locations, in both Iraq and Syria. Not Iran. With all due and sincere respect, you are smarter than this.
If I am smarter than this, they why did you conveniently leave out the rocket attack that killed two Americans? You made it sound like those airstrikes were just out of the blue, and they weren't. They were retaliation for an unprovoked attack that killed Americans. And those Americans are there with the permission of the Iraqi government. It was that attack that set all of the following nastiness in motion. The Shiite militia that carried out that attack takes its orders not from the Iraqi government, and they don't just attack an American base on their own say-so. They were being directed by Iran. My point of view is that Gen. Soleimani was directing those attacks, and he was a soldier, and he died as a soldier as soldiers often do. For us, his killing was a legitimate act of self defense.

We lost our best hope of a savior, when we lost Tulsi to a smear campaign that undermined our democracy. Now we have only 2 brain dead choices. Maybe she will run again if we are still around.
I hope so. I have great respect for her. I thought she was far and away the best Democrat who ran for the presidency.

Anyway, lets just look at the facts. Iran is not at war with the USA. The US never advised the the UN or its Security Council about this immediate and immediate threat? Yet America did have time to advise Israel and Saudi Arabia, and even get their blessings for the go-ahead. Congress was never notified, and no congressional approval was ever sought. The Trump regime simply decided that murdering 10 foreign nationals in a foreign country, was the best possible option for its agenda. If this was such an obvious act of self defense, then the evidence should also be just as obvious. Why was Pompeo so wishy washy, and condescending in his answers? Is this what you call acting in self-defense?

"At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani," read the statement, which added that Soleimani "was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.".

Is this all that is needed to claim self-defense, and justify the murder of a foreign citizen? Think God all the authoritarian dictatorial despots that follow this misguided self-serving logic are all dead(except Trump). You do realize that we are IN THEIR country killing their people, and disrespecting their culture and customs? Why are we blaming them every time they try to fight back? Now this is arrogance. I think that getting out of the Middle East is the first step we need to take, if we really want to save American lives.
Shell, he wasn't just "a foreign citizen."

Seth
 
Last edited:

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
How does that apply?
We do the USA's bidding every time they want to play with their bombs .... did you know our SAS were in Iraq weeks before the US sent any troops collecting intelligence on troop movements etc .... apprently our guys excel at infiltatration and remaining undetected.
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
We do the USA's bidding every time they want to play with their bombs .... did you know our SAS were in Iraq weeks before the US sent any troops collecting intelligence on troop movements etc .... apprently our guys excel at infiltatration and remaining undetected.
I thought the subject was Nuclear Power🙄
 
I think it is possible to be evil and not even realize it. Hitler probably didn't think the annihilation of the Jews was evil. The Japanese probably didn't think their war crimes were evil. Both justified these things in their minds. Shell, no country - its people is the "country" - is perfectly evil. But it is possible, and born out by history, that certain leaders can be extremely evil.
"Evil" is such a broad and relative term to use, and means the absence of good. Therefore the term itself is absolute. You either are pregnant, or you are not. The human condition, and human evolution, does not allow for this absolute condition to even exist. If anyone could be totally evil, they would be shun from the group, and their genes would never be passed on. But, I understand the generic use of "evil". and, again, it is none of my business. Also, your own perspective does influence your opinion. If you were Stalin, Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, then your perspective would be different. Your judgement of Kim's regime would also be different. Xi Jinping(China) and Vladimir Putin(Russia) are still helping N. Korea in spite of the sanctions. They clearly don't share your subjective view of the N. Korean regime.

An objective perspective means that everyone will share the same view from the same perspective. Clearly other countries do not share your perspective. I personal feel that we should end all Theocratic and Authoritarian government all over the world. But actioning that opinion would make me a bigger theocrat and authoritarian than the governments I want to end. So, leave them alone, and stay out of their affairs. Unless you have walked a mile in their shoes.

I also don't accept that it is impossible to get NK to get rid of their nukes short of killing them all. I think Trump made a good faith effort to get that ball rolling. I think he shared his vision with Kim of a peaceful, prosperous, and secure North Korea, and he showed him a lot of respect. I would have liked for Trump to have taken a first step to show good faith. A small but real gesture. We have an Army division in South Korea. I would have liked to have seen him withdraw one of its battalions as a show of good faith. But, in any case, I think the effort was worth while and should be continued.
This is a country that preaches isolationism, mistrust of the outside, self-reliance, militarism, and leader worship. Do you expect a country with these cardinal beliefs, to just comply under pressure? What would you do if Russia and China sanctioned America, to give up its nukes, and its Democratic and Capitalistic beliefs? We would go to war, right? Remember sanctions are an act or war.

Also, Trump does nothing. His role in any treaty, economic, or peace negotiation, is purely ceremonial. What the hell does he know about diplomatic protocols, or any nuances in foreign negotiation strategies? He is just a small minded, silver-spooned, narcissistic sociopath. These negotiations are done by teams of experts from the State Department. Usually a team from the State Dept. will meet with a team from another government to hash out some deal. If the negotiations are successful, and a deal is worked out, only then will Trump be advised of the results. He may then choose to visit that government and put on a show for the gullible public. And, then take credit for a deal that others have already made. This is how it works. This is government protocol. But, as expected from an ego-centric idiot, Trump decided to do it alone. Do you really think that Mike Pompeo was going say, or do anything to stop his master? I don't think so. So, no, this moron received only smiles, nods, and grins, and was sent packing on his merry and deluded way, empty-handed. As is what happened, regardless of the bs the public was fed.

If America removed ALL of its 15 bases in S. Korea, it might get more attention from N. Korea. Now THAT would be a start. We can only try to convince a sovereign nation to do something, that they don't want to do. We can't simply force them. Unless you think that national pride means nothing to the N. Koreans. But, if you somehow believe that the N. Korean people are just waiting to be saved from this Authoritarian tyrant, then you are making a very dangerous assumption. As a rational person, I'm not willing to sacrifice the entire world based on an assumption. Eventually, it will take just one spark to set off a nuclear exchange, and nobody will win.

Shell, I wasn't there in class with my son, so I don't know if this was framed as merely her opinion or if she supported it with facts. Nevertheless, academia is steeped in this anti-American dogma.
I also can't comment. Except from my own experiences. My studies were in the physical and pure sciences. But I did dabble in the humanities, social sciences, history of a western civilization, and even a class in Black history. I believe knowledge is the key to a better understanding of self. And, that the more we understand self, the more emotionally and intellectually secure we will become. I believe that knowledge is the key to our EQ and IQ. Unfortunately, in the end, none of this matters at all. Even Nature can be cruel and hubris.

Shell, it's not just Black Americans. This belief has been adopted by white progressive liberal professors that infest our universities. You don't seem to understand that if you deny your own racism, these people will use that as proof of it. "Internalized Racial Superiority" is what you're guilty of. They say that racism is not your fault, but you are responsible for it. Etc, etc, etc.
Seth, we ARE responsible!! Even if we did nothing about what we saw happening, we are still responsible. This is not just some belief or opinion. The racism against Blacks(and other minorities), is very real. And, it still exists today. Would you like to see the historical evidence of the insidious nature of racism and bigotry? No racist will will ever admit to being a racist. That is why it is such a cowardly trait. But, having said that, we are instinctively hardwired by evolution to be discriminative. We discriminate based on hierarchy, size, color, gender, similarities and differences, like many other life forms. It is my belief that racism and bigotry is a left over primitive trait. I have found very little racism and bigotry among academics. It might be internalized, but I have not seen it expressed openly. The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. Do you remember anything specifically that was said?

You know that, and I know that. People should be judged by the "content of their character" (Martin Luther King), not the color of their skin. I think of black citizens as my fellow Americans, and for those who want a hand up, it should be offered. But these progressive liberals would say that I have "internalized racial superiority" and cite aspects of my life as proof of it.
It is sad, that only the very old, the very young, and the intellectually secure, achieve this level of social enlightenment. All people should be fellow Americans. Not just Americans. Unless, individually, the "content of their character", becomes a moral or physical threat to you. Judged not as a race, but as an individual. We will never have any version of a "kumbaya" society, but we may be able to achieve the level of mutual respect for each other.

Do you remember the experiment, where participants worn labels on their forehead? Each label described how they were to be treated by each of the other participants(smart person listen, idiot never listen, joker, liar, thief, conman, weak character, etc.). Over time the need for group acceptance won out. The participants became whatever the group would treat them as. Just as we stereotype Black Americans(and other minorities), they also stereotype us. Do they have good reason to do so, absolutely. We may be blamed for the sins of our fathers, but we don't carry the racial stigma that they do.

Anyway, its just my two cents worth.
 
Four reasons I can think of....

So, you are saying that, since N. Korea is under the umbrella of both Russia and China(ally), like S. Korea is under the US(ally), that you feel that it is not fair for them to have their own Nukes? Or, that you don't want them to have a nuclear advantage over S. Korea? Or, that N. Korea should destroy their nukes or justify to you why they should keep them? REALLY!!!

Numbers 3 & 4 are all "what if" scenarios, and more unfounded fear mongering. As I have said before, they have nukes, they are a sovereign country, and what they do inside their country is none of our business. Either you just attack this country for whatever reason you have convinced yourself of, or just move on. They have done nothing, attacked no one, and no matter how many scenarios you can make up, they will still have done nothing and attacked no one. We still don't attack and kill people for what they might do(or, I use to think so). Tell Trump and S. Korea to turn down their own hyperbolic rhetoric, and provocative actions(sanctions), and learn to live with the fact that N. Korea is not going to give up their only protection against outsiders. We keep threatening and sanctioning them, and then demonize them when the threaten us back. They are doing absolutely NOTHING to us, except ignoring us. And, telling us to piss off and leave them alone. We are the aggressors. We are the ones provoking N. Korea. We are sanctioning them until they comply. What gives us this right? We are the ones that will eventually cause the nuclear exchange, that we are trying to avoid. Eventually they will choose death over servitude.

Again, stay out of their affairs. It is sheer arrogance that if we believe that the Korean peninsula should be nuclear free, and then try to make it so. Our opinions are irrelevant, but our actions aren't. We are responsible for our actions, not our opinions. So, again, what hostile actions has Kim taken against other countries(other than S. Korea)? What other countries has he attacked, or is in control of? Has he ever used his nukes on any country? I don't care about just talk. That is happening on both sides.

If I am smarter than this, they why did you conveniently leave out the rocket attack that killed two Americans? You made it sound like those airstrikes were just out of the blue, and they weren't. They were retaliation for an unprovoked attack that killed Americans. And those Americans are there with the permission of the Iraqi government. It was that attack that set all of the following nastiness in motion. The Shiite militia that carried out that attack takes its orders not from the Iraqi government, and they don't just attack an American base on their own say-so. They were being directed by Iran. My point of view is that Gen. Soleimani was directing those attacks, and he was a soldier, and he died as a soldier as soldiers often do. For us, his killing was a legitimate act of self defense.
Firstly Americans do not have permission to stay in Iraq. In fact Trump threatened the Iraqi leader with destroying their monuments and religious artifacts, when the prime minister asked the Americans to leave Iraq. Since the American occupation, Iraq has been "taking all international legal measures", to get them out. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...ps-do-not-have-permission-to-stay-in-country/

I'm not going to go conflict by conflict in reverse order. Because in the end the US is on foreign soil illegally. They also have no permission to be in Iraq, or to patrol Syrian oil fields. But none of these countries will risk an all out war with the US. A war that they can't win. So they simply ignore them, as they would children. Children will eventually get tired, bored, and stop wasting billions of dollar. But if Russia and China ever decide to get involved, I guarantee that all of our allies will abandon the Trump bandwagon of lunacy. If the US ever attacks Iran, only Saudi Arabia and Israel will back them. But if Russia and China decide to protect their own interests in Iran, these 2 countries will abandon America in a New York minute.

You keep saying that this act of murder was in self-defense, but where is the proof? Where is the evidence that can not only justify the murdering of Soleimani, but also the 9 Iraqi nationals?. Were they also an immediate/imminent threat? Or, is America now above the law, and acting as a bully? The original U.S. Department of Defense statement said, "that the strike was carried out "at the direction of the president" and was meant to deter future attacks. Trump asserted that Soleimani had been planning further attacks on American diplomats and military personnel and had approved the attack on the American embassy in Baghdad.". How is this in any reality, considered an imminent and immediate threat, or self-defense? Where is the evidence of even the planned attacks? Where?? Lets start launching Reaper drones at the cartels in Mexico and S. America!!! They are certainly an imminent and immediate threat to all Americans.

I hope so. I have great respect for her. I thought she was far and away the best Democrat who ran for the presidency.
She was totally in a class of her own. She was the perfect politician. But if you throw enough mud on the wall, then some of it will stick. And, the smear campaign against her was horrendous and relentless. They attacked everything about her. This is what happens when you openly challenge the establishment. Her policies were simple. Stop all regime change wars, bring all troops home, end all sanctions, return to the nuclear table, and use the billons of war-dollars to address our urgent domestic issues at home. What rational mind could argue with this? And being an active major in the National Guard, a combat veteran, a member of the house, a beautiful female of color, intelligent, and the most sincere and genuine politician with gravitas, that I have ever seen in my lifetime, also didn't hurt. I actively supported her since day one, and preached her message. Now I see how how democratic primaries are really decided. Now we are stuck with only two brain-dead choices. A 77 year old senile, or a 74 year old narcissistic sociopath. I seriously think we're not going to make it another 4 more years.

Shell, he wasn't just "a foreign citizen."
All of the 10 people killed in Trumps cowardly attack, were foreign citizens, from an American perspective. Were they all refugees? What their rank, importance, or positions were, is totally irrelevant. We committed an act of war on foreign soil. There is no spin, no version of this fact, and no excuses we can come up with, to justify this blatant act of murder. Do you think Trump's actions has made American safer at home now, or less safe? Do you think the thousands of innocent people killed by Americans in the Middle East. But Trump did say that if he was elected, that he would use the military to inflict bloodletting on others. He was true to his word here.

 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
So, you are saying that, since N. Korea is under the umbrella of both Russia and China(ally), like S. Korea is under the US(ally), that you feel that it is not fair for them to have their own Nukes? Or, that you don't want them to have a nuclear advantage over S. Korea? Or, that N. Korea should destroy their nukes or justify to you why they should keep them? REALLY!!!
I believe that some relative parity in military capability should be maintained between the North and the South. Nukes upset that parity.

Secondly, I don't want NK to have the capability to destroy us.

Firstly Americans do not have permission to stay in Iraq.
I think you'll find this interesting .... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54085129

A couple of highlights ...

On Monday, Mr Trump also suggested there was a rift with top military leaders, telling reporters: "I'm not saying the military's in love with me." He added that while the soldiers are, Pentagon officials "probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy".

The US is also to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Germany. All American soldiers could be out of Afghanistan by next April per an agreement signed with the Taliban earlier this year ....

In 2014, when IS seized control of large parts of Iraq, US forces returned at the invitation of the Iraqi government ....


[After the killing of Soleimani] The Iraqi parliament subsequently approved a non-binding bill urging the government to "cancel the request for help it presented to the international coalition". However, it was never implemented.

On August 20th of this year, President Trump and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi met at the White House. After Trump made some remarks, the Prime Minister said,

PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank you for receiving us in the White House today. I’m grateful for all the support offered by the United States to Iraq during the war against ISIS.
This support has built our partnership for the best interests for our nation....


And from a NY Times report ...

Both leaders have emphasized their desire for troop reductions, but the details of how that would happen are murky. The Iraqis have said they want assistance from the Americans without a sizable military presence, while the Trump administration, fixated on the threat of Iranian influence, has been advised to keep a small number of troops on the ground.

Mr. Trump has signaled that he wants to withdraw all U.S. forces from the region, from both Iraq and Syria. “We’re bringing them home from Syria. We’re bringing them home from Iraq,” he said on “Fox & Friends” on Monday. “These endless wars, they never stop.”


In my opinion, Shell, Iraq has one thing in common with the United States - politics matter. I say that because my opinion is that the Iraqi government wants a limited presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, in particular trainers. I think they also know that our Special Forces are pretty damn good, and they are actually a very valuable asset in both striking IS terrorists and teaching. At the same time, I think they want to appear determined to have a withdrawal of most U.S. forces because that is popular with the public. Not unlike our own politicians, they want it both ways.

I actually agree with both Trump and the Prime Minister. I would like to see most of our troops removed from Iraq, but I don't mind if we leave a contingent of trainers for their military. In order for a government to be a competent, viable government, it needs a competent, trained military.

On Syria, I want us out. I would like to see an agreement between the various players - Syria, Russia, Turkey, and the Kurds - that guarantees the Kurds' protection from attack or persecution before we completely leave. In exchange for that, the Kurds should withdraw their forces to their traditional areas.

You keep saying that this act of murder was in self-defense, but where is the proof? Where is the evidence that can not only justify the murdering of Soleimani, but also the 9 Iraqi nationals?. Were they also an immediate/imminent threat?
"The 9 Iraqi nationals", as you so benignly put it, were Shiite militia leaders. The ties between Iran and Iraqi Shiite militias have been common knowledge for a long time, and, as I said before, it was an unprovoked attack on Americans by an Iranian-backed Shiite militia that set that ball rolling.

She was totally in a class of her own. She was the perfect politician. But if you throw enough mud on the wall, then some of it will stick. And, the smear campaign against her was horrendous and relentless. They attacked everything about her. This is what happens when you openly challenge the establishment. Her policies were simple. Stop all regime change wars, bring all troops home, end all sanctions, return to the nuclear table, and use the billons of war-dollars to address our urgent domestic issues at home. What rational mind could argue with this? And being an active major in the National Guard, a combat veteran, a member of the house, a beautiful female of color, intelligent, and the most sincere and genuine politician with gravitas, that I have ever seen in my lifetime, also didn't hurt. I actively supported her since day one, and preached her message. Now I see how how democratic primaries are really decided. Now we are stuck with only two brain-dead choices. A 77 year old senile, or a 74 year old narcissistic sociopath. I seriously think we're not going to make it another 4 more years.
I agree with everything you said about her. I actually voted for her in the primary.

All of the 10 people killed in Trumps cowardly attack, were foreign citizens, from an American perspective. Were they all refugees? What their rank, importance, or positions were, is totally irrelevant. We committed an act of war on foreign soil. There is no spin, no version of this fact, and no excuses we can come up with, to justify this blatant act of murder. Do you think Trump's actions has made American safer at home now, or less safe?
It wasn't about making us safer at home. It was about making our overseas deployed troops safer.

You see, I don't especially like the policy of having troops in Iraq. But, as long as they're there with the cooperation of the Iraqi government (albeit with the political double talk), dammit, if they are attacked, I approve of punching back.

Seth
 
We Have been in Iraq for over 17 years(since 2003). Saddam Hussein has been dead for 14 years. Why are we continuing to put our soldiers in harms way? Claiming that we are fighting a war against terrorism, is like claiming, that we are fighting a war against a religious belief. It is just an unrealistic, irrational exercise in futility.

We should have left Iraq, when the Republican Guards returned to Iraq, from Kuwait. Did you know who aided, financed, and trained many of the Iraqi soldiers during the Iraq-Iran war? America! Do you know who aided Iran, by setting up advanced listening posts to monitor Iraqi troop movements? The CIA!!! As I've said before, both sides of their mouth.

"The 9 Iraqi nationals", as you so benignly put it, were Shiite militia leaders. The ties between Iran and Iraqi Shiite militias have been common knowledge for a long time, and, as I said before, it was an unprovoked attack on Americans by an Iranian-backed Shiite militia that set that ball rolling.
The 9 Iraqi nationals were citizens of Iraq(and military leaders). Soleimani is also a citizen of Iran(and military leader). Of course, none of this is relevant at all. And, does not justify an entire country, sanctioning the killing of citizens in another country. Fortunately, Soleimani was not liked by many Iraqi Shiites, and certainly not by most of the Sunnis. So, not a lot of blow-back from the Arab Nations. Before you can take the life of an individual, and then claim self-defense, there must first exist a provable, real, and imminent threat to life. Not from prudence or revenge. Or, not because you can make a logical case, and not a legal case. Yes Soleimani was directly/indirectly responsible for the death of many innocent people in the Middle East. But only God has the right to put out a hit on him. Not a single nation. No nation should have that much power. And, once we go down that slippery slope, it will be too late to give up this power.

It wasn't about making us safer at home. It was about making our overseas deployed troops safer.

You see, I don't especially like the policy of having troops in Iraq. But, as long as they're there with the cooperation of the Iraqi government (albeit with the political double talk), dammit, if they are attacked, I approve of punching back.
If you want to keep the soldiers safe, then just get out. We are never going to win a war on how people think, or what they believe in. We do not live their lives, understand their culture, or follow their customs. Let the people decide the government they want, not us. It is our presence there that is disruptive. I seriously doubt that Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other Middle Eastern government, would want any foreign troops in their country, patrolling their air, sea and land for decades. Would you want that?

We do have a fundamental difference in the idea of what we can do as a nation, and what we should do as a nation. We also have a fundamental difference in our belief, in what is in our best interests, and what is just in our interests. Finally, we differ in our levels of impartial objectivity, intuition, and in how we interpret the facts.

Simple put, we are NOT the world's police. We are not the righteous police, the moral police, the legal police, the political police, or should act as the world's judge and executioner. Our sovereignty does NOT extend to every country on the planet. We can't sanction, threaten, defund, blockade, invade, destabilize, or demonize any country that doesn't do what we want. No country should be allowed that much power. I sincerely hope that there is no argument here.

My point has always been, think whatever you want about another country or its government. Wish whatever you want about another country. But as long as that country does not pose a clear, and direct threat to you, then don't action your thoughts and wishes, based on fear. N. Korea has done nothing directly to any other country. Yet other countries have directly done everything to N. Korea. I am still amazed at its restraint. But, if we keep it up, they have no choice but to fight back. Then you can just blame them for the outcome. Then you will see the ICBM's up close and personal. Will this become just another self-serving prophecy?

Please leave N. Korea alone. They are so not worth a nuclear exchange over. Please remove our troops from the Middle East. How many Sunnis and Shiites are in the American military? How many military personnel live in any of these Middle Eastern countries? How many even speak their languages, or understand/practice their religious ideologies?

We have enough problems to address in our own backyard. Maybe we can use some of the Trillion dollars in war dividends saved, and use it to address our social issues. Instead of the "every 4 years excuse" that there just ain't enough money to go around. The world is a big place. Maybe we need more than 800 American bases to police it?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
We Have been in Iraq for over 17 years(since 2003). Saddam Hussein has been dead for 14 years. Why are we continuing to put our soldiers in harms way? Claiming that we are fighting a war against terrorism, is like claiming, that we are fighting a war against a religious belief. It is just an unrealistic, irrational exercise in futility.

We should have left Iraq, when the Republican Guards returned to Iraq, from Kuwait. Did you know who aided, financed, and trained many of the Iraqi soldiers during the Iraq-Iran war? America! Do you know who aided Iran, by setting up advanced listening posts to monitor Iraqi troop movements? The CIA!!! As I've said before, both sides of their mouth.



The 9 Iraqi nationals were citizens of Iraq(and military leaders). Soleimani is also a citizen of Iran(and military leader). Of course, none of this is relevant at all. And, does not justify an entire country, sanctioning the killing of citizens in another country. Fortunately, Soleimani was not liked by many Iraqi Shiites, and certainly not by most of the Sunnis. So, not a lot of blow-back from the Arab Nations. Before you can take the life of an individual, and then claim self-defense, there must first exist a provable, real, and imminent threat to life. Not from prudence or revenge. Or, not because you can make a logical case, and not a legal case. Yes Soleimani was directly/indirectly responsible for the death of many innocent people in the Middle East. But only God has the right to put out a hit on him. Not a single nation. No nation should have that much power. And, once we go down that slippery slope, it will be too late to give up this power.



If you want to keep the soldiers safe, then just get out. We are never going to win a war on how people think, or what they believe in. We do not live their lives, understand their culture, or follow their customs. Let the people decide the government they want, not us. It is our presence there that is disruptive. I seriously doubt that Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other Middle Eastern government, would want any foreign troops in their country, patrolling their air, sea and land for decades. Would you want that?

We do have a fundamental difference in the idea of what we can do as a nation, and what we should do as a nation. We also have a fundamental difference in our belief, in what is in our best interests, and what is just in our interests. Finally, we differ in our levels of impartial objectivity, intuition, and in how we interpret the facts.

Simple put, we are NOT the world's police. We are not the righteous police, the moral police, the legal police, the political police, or should act as the world's judge and executioner. Our sovereignty does NOT extend to every country on the planet. We can't sanction, threaten, defund, blockade, invade, destabilize, or demonize any country that doesn't do what we want. No country should be allowed that much power. I sincerely hope that there is no argument here.

My point has always been, think whatever you want about another country or its government. Wish whatever you want about another country. But as long as that country does not pose a clear, and direct threat to you, then don't action your thoughts and wishes, based on fear. N. Korea has done nothing directly to any other country. Yet other countries have directly done everything to N. Korea. I am still amazed at its restraint. But, if we keep it up, they have no choice but to fight back. Then you can just blame them for the outcome. Then you will see the ICBM's up close and personal. Will this become just another self-serving prophecy?

Please leave N. Korea alone. They are so not worth a nuclear exchange over. Please remove our troops from the Middle East. How many Sunnis and Shiites are in the American military? How many military personnel live in any of these Middle Eastern countries? How many even speak their languages, or understand/practice their religious ideologies?

We have enough problems to address in our own backyard. Maybe we can use some of the Trillion dollars in war dividends saved, and use it to address our social issues. Instead of the "every 4 years excuse" that there just ain't enough money to go around. The world is a big place. Maybe we need more than 800 American bases to police it?
I think we have wrung this out pretty well. Cheers! :drinks
 
Top