'Occupy' types

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Iraq. Lybia. Iran....and possibly soon to be Syria.

We're out of Iraq.
Libya I didnt agree with either.
We are not invading or bombing Iran.....thats ridiculous.
Same goes for Syria, not today anyway. I would not be in favor of that either.
I'm fine watching them kill each other off by themselves.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

We're out of Iraq.
Libya I didnt agree with either.
We are not invading or bombing Iran.....thats ridiculous.
Same goes for Syria, not today anyway. I would not be in favor of that either.
I'm fine watching them kill each other off by themselves.

Isn't that the truth. I'm thinking if we could just pass out small firearms to everyone over there they would kill each other off in a few years.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You didn't answer my question, and those have nothing to do with what I asked. WWI and WWII were situations where people were being invaded without cause. This isn't the case now. We are invading and bombing people without justification.

Isn't a U.N. Mandate enough of a reason?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yep, we don't need a military. - We need one, just one in America.

Well, I thought you were opposed to all those guys in riot gear? What do we need one in the US for?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no pirates near major shipping lanes. - I have no problem with our ships patrolling the sea passages.

Even in areas not in our control? Neutral territory? What happens when these pirates retreat to sovereign waters? - Do we end our chase? Do we violate another country's territorial waters? Or are just supposed "patrol only"? What size Navy is acceptable? Do we protect allied shipping? Might that draw us into foreign conflicts of which we have no part?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no Persians building mega bombs and threatening our friends or threatening to close critical bodies of water. - Do what?...lol

Iran is, at the least, doing a lot of saber rattling concerning its ability to manufacture and produce a nuclear weapons and affecting trade through the Straits of Hormuz. Are you comfortable with that particular regime having nuclear weapons? Do you believe it might have a destabilizing effect on the region? Might it have negative consequences for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq? If our allies in the region are, in fact, directly threatened by such developments what should our response be? How effective would they be with no military force to back them up?

Iran to unveil new nuclear fuel advance - report | Reuters:
"[Iran's] Spent fuel can be reprocessed to make plutonium, potential bomb material, but Western worries about Iran's nuclear programme are focused on its enrichment of uranium, which can also provide the core of nuclear weapons if refined much more."

"Western powers fear that Iran's uranium enrichment programme is part of a covert bid to develop the means to build atomic weapons - suspicions that were given independent weight by a detailed U.N. nuclear watchdog report late last year."

Iran threatens to shut Straits of Hormuz with military manoeuvre | Mail Online:

"Iran is threatening to close off the world's most important oil shipping lane as tensions between it and the West mount following the capture of an unmanned American spy plane."

"Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, said his country was preparing to close off the crucial Strait of Hormuz as part of a military exercise."

"Around a third of all shipped oil passes through the four mile-wide Strait between Oman and Iran and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage."

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no Chinese suggesting we stay on our side of the Pacific. - It's good advice. You don't see Chinese military on our side of the world do you? Nope.

So, we w/draw our military support of Taiwan (our 9th largest trade partner with a two-way trade of approximately $62,000,000,000). At the same time, we withdraw our troops from Japan and S. Korea. Okay. Nothing but good can come from that scenario - especially, when China decides to force the issue with Tiawan and presents them with the ultimatum "Assent to reunification or be invaded".

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no Russian Tu-95s flying up and down our Alaskan coast. - We are flying drones over other people's air space. Your point?

So, if we stop our drones, no one will spy on us? We shouldn't be flying our drones in an attempt to gain intelligence? We shouldn't try to shoot the drones over our space down? We shouldn't fund the military to protect the integrity of our air space? I thought the only military expense you acceeded to was home defense? What's your point?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no Al Queda members planning the next 9-11. - There is also a boggie man under your bed to. Didn't that scary tale get old?

Yes. No. Sorta. Is there an Al Queda terrorist behind every door? Nope. Do they still exist and are they still a threat to the US? Yes. What level of threat? Not sure - but enough of one to make sure we have resources to track and respond to them. In equating AQ with a "boogie man under the bed", are you suggesting we end funding of counter-terrorist military spending?

Current Al Queda leadership seems more interested in establishing a jihadist Middle East state rather than direct attacks on the US. With that said, however, ignoring their existence, pretending they pose NO threat or irrationally discounting the threat they do pose is being just as intellectually foolish as those who see AQ terrorists under their bed at night.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no unstable nuclear govts in North Korea. - Funny, there is a unstable government here in the US.

What a BS response but a typical one for you - brilliantly logical and even handed. You truly delve into the crux of the issue. Not glib, one-sided or arrogant in any way.

So, the US govt. is the equivalent, moral and otherwise, to the autocratic, isolationist govt. of NK currently headed by a 29 year old with absolute power and no governing experience and access to weapons grade nuclear fuel. Oh, by the way, did we mention that this govt. borders our 7th largest trading partner and the world's 15th largest economy?
No worries, we've already w/drawn our troops.

Like it or not, we are a global nation with far flung interests and allies. We get drawn into the "World's Policeman" role to often and to easily. Sometimes from our own short sightedness (Iraq), sometimes believing it necessary (Afghanistan) and sometimes out of a desire to assist (Somalia comes to mind). Regardless, while a draw down should occur as we pull back from Afghanistan and Iraq, the days of isolationism are well past us and a strong, responsive military is necessary to uphold our promises to our friends and to ensure our trade.

Yup, we could do as Paul says and, essentially, withdraw from the world stage, but I suggest it would be economically devastating on many levels and a tragically destabilizing event in the world.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Iran. They want to invade bad. It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering. So they use the constant fear tactic of "nuclear warfare" to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom"..

WHO wants to invade bad? Joe schmoe on the street? Romney? Santorum? CPAC? There are lots of stupid people who want to do stupid things. Are they relevant to the actual discussion? Are they in a position to make such things occur? If not, who gives a flaming f***. Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

As always, you practice in vaguaries and logical leaps. Maybe someone is doing is arguing the position you suggest. You may be right. At the same time, I honestly haven't heard any politician suggest it. WHO, specifically, is using the "tactic of 'nuclear warfare' to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom' ".

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

My point regarding the military and campaign contributions was to show that many are tired of the pointless fighting and wars to and want to come home. Not so much as they endorse X guy over Y guy. I think they probably would more more inclined to endorse the guy who's going to bring them home as compared to the guy who wants to poke the hornets nest.

And my point regarding the military and campaign contributions is simply that the sample size is far too small to draw any conclusions from it at all.

BUT: Assuming the only reason someone from the military would support Paul is because of his foreign policy positions AND that a contribution constitutes exactly the statement you purport it to be ("Many are tired of pointless fighting") - why is a statement by 2% of the military significant when the other 98% have made no statement or a statement to the contrary. Using your same logical constructs, one could just as easily assert that the silence of the other 96.5% constitutes support for the current US military activities.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin(Edit)

By the way, 2% also assumes each $1.00 represents one active military person. If a more reasonable value is assigned - say, $10.00 per person, the sample size shrinks to .2% (rounding up) of military personnel. Pretty sure no reasonable statistician would draw any conclusions from that sample size.

[Alvin Walton]

We'll never invade Iran, theres no point to it.
Bombing their nuke plants, sure, but invasion? Ha!

They will probably get all uppity after we hit their nuke plants and deploy their navy.
Sure, we'll drop their navy like panties on a prom night but we wont put Marines ashore.
I'd talk about their air force but its pretty much irrelevant.

[That Guy]

iran has 76million people, over twice as many as iraq, so, without a draft, I don't see us having the numbers to make that happen even if someone thought it was a good idea (and I'd argue it isn't).

[JoeRedskin]

Still looking for members of the "far right crew" who are champing at the bit to invade Iran ...

[Hog1]

I contacted WeWhite, Hess and SBF regarding your Iran invasion......They're in!

[Alvin Walton]

The janitor in my building said he's in too.
(has his own .22)

[firstdown]

So is Obama going to invade Iran? Well he is fighting for our freedom!!!

[Alvin Walton]

In an election year?
Ha!

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

WHO wants to invade bad? Joe schmoe on the street? Romney? Santorum? CPAC? There are lots of stupid people who want to do stupid things. Are they relevant to the actual discussion? Are they in a position to make such things occur? If not, who gives a flaming f***. Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

As always, you practice in vaguaries and logical leaps. Maybe someone is doing is arguing the position you suggest. You may be right. At the same time, I honestly haven't heard any politician suggest it. WHO, specifically, is using the "tactic of 'nuclear warfare' to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom' ".

I figure I wouldn't even have to bother citing who was for military action or bombing Iran since you GOPers should know your own party. Which candidate? All of them save Ron Paul.

You were saying? Nah, he's not pumping fear into the mass public. Nope.
» Gingrich: Iran Nuke Attack on U.S. “Real Danger” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

“You think about an Iranian nuclear weapon. You think about the dangers, to Cleveland, or to Columbus, or to Cincinnati, or to New York,” Gingrich said while in Cleveland, Ohio. “Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it’s 300,000 dead. Maybe a half-million wounded. This is a real danger. This is not science fiction. That’s why I think it’s very important that we have the strongest possible national security.”

Would President Romney Bomb Iran? - ABC News

Gingrich

Bomb Iran? It's complicated. Gingrich supports regime change, and even suggests that he could topple the regime without military action in a year. "We're going to replace their regime, ideally non-militarily." If necessary, "as a last recourse," he supports military action to effect regime change. Without a change in Iran's government, however, he doesn't believe that bombing would do anything but delay Iran's nuclear weapons production.

Huntsman

Quotable: "I can't live with the thought of what a nuclear Iran brings to the region and what they said about Israel, which is our centerpiece alliance in the region. I can't live -- I can't live in the world with a nuclear Iran."

Perry

"Well, here's where we find ourselves with two really bad-- positions. We're either going to allow this madman to have become in control of a nuclear device or we are going to have a nuclear strike, or excuse me, a military strike, to keep that from occurring, either the Israelis unilaterally, or in a bi-lateral or multi-lateral way with their allies.

Romney.

Bomb Iran? 'Ultimately, regime change is what's going to be necessary," says Romney, who believes both "covert and overt" actions should be used to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. should develop military plans, though he hoped they were never put into effect. "But the Iranians will understand that we have prepared credible military options, that they'll know there is a consequence of becoming nuclear."

Santorum

Bomb Iran? "Yes, that's the plan," said Santorum, when asked if he would order air strikes on Iran if they were going to obtain nuclear weapons. The conservative dark horse who came within eight votes of winning Iowa from Mitt Romney is the most bellicose of the GOP contenders when it comes to Iran. In an interview with Glenn Beck, he said Iran's regime was worse than al Qaeda, and that an attack on Iran would prevent war.

Nah, nobody's been talking about bombing Iran. Not even as far back as 2007.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran - YouTube

This shit wreaks of how Iraq war started. They pump the fear up into people about WMD (or nukes), and then they come out and say LOOK WE HAVE PROOF OF WMD.....which they invade only to find out nothing is there. Trillions of dollars later, and countless people are dead, nobody is held accountable.

Iran trumpets nuclear advances, deepening standoff with West - Yahoo! News


^^the drum beats of war. If you can hear them, then you aren't listening to the mainstream media much.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

We'll never invade Iran, theres no point to it.
Bombing their nuke plants, sure, but invasion? Ha!

They will probably get all uppity after we hit their nuke plants and deploy their navy.
Sure, we'll drop their navy like panties on a prom night but we wont put Marines ashore.
I'd talk about their air force but its pretty much irrelevant.

There was no point to invade Iraq but we did.
There was no point for military actions in Lybia but we did.


What does Iraq, Iran, and Lybia all have in common?


Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006 — Infoplease.com

All three countries are in the top 10 in oil reserves. This is no coincidence. Tell me, why are we talking about air strikes to North Korea? How come we aren't steam rolling the warlords in South Africa? Resources. That's why. Everything in life comes back to two things. Money and Power.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You know who Chalmers Johnson is? He was a consultant that worked with the CIA back in the 60's and 70's. I'll let him tell you the story of the CIA, the US government and Iran.




I'll respond to the other stuff later.

No response for any of you?...lol I thought as much. Nothing to say when you know good and god damn well our country is at fault for all of this and will continue to make things worse by meddling in the Middle East.