Pacifism and the Left

[Polk]

Except who is proposing "defense budgets [be] cut to the bone"? The answer is no one. Even under the lower funding scenario, we're still talking about a world where we're vastly outspending all potential enemies.

And we should continue to do so.

You seem to suggest that we know how much said enemies are spending...and how to calculate the amounts we are transferring to these enemies via:

1. "Bat-winged, high-flying and hard to detect, America's RQ-170 Sentinel plane is the perfect stealth drone for peering into another country's secret sites without being caught.

One was used in May to feed back live footage of the US Navy Seal raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

So probably not the sort of hardware the CIA would ever like to fall into the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps? Oops."
BBC News - Why Iran's capture of US drone will shake CIA

Of course, a different President might have blown it up....

and

2. "A newly released document from the U.S. State Department reveals that the most successful Chinese espionage operation in recent history occurred during the Clinton administration.

The document accuses Hughes Space and Communications Company of violating U.S. national security 123 times by knowingly sending detailed missile and space technology directly to the Chinese army."
Clinton and Chinese Missiles


Did you subtract the values of above from defense spending, and add it to the phantom-defense-spending of the above nations?


Atomic bomb experimentation and research didn't cost Soviet Union much, either...


And all three under Democrat administrations.....

Yes, because we know there has never been a spy craft shot down when a Republican is in office. Are you really that stupid? Also, it's pretty absurd to believe that the enemy attempting to reverse engineer something from current technology is going to really shrink that funding gap. Do you really think we don't spy on what other countries are doing as well?

While we're at it, does this mean you support withdrawing military aid to Israel, since it's well-known they take large portions of what they buy and then sell it to China.

 

[Polk]

The real truth of this thread? The right has this Manichaean worldview that since they're hyper-aggressive and crave war, it must mean those who don't share that view are cowards.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The real truth of this thread? The right has this Manichaean worldview that since they're hyper-aggressive and crave war, it must mean those who don't share that view are cowards.

And this post represents the essential nature of our debate.

I plead guilty to "The right has this Manichaean worldview" as opposed to the moral relativism of the Left.

The American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc.

The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.”

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden. This view, however, holds that life is complicated and man is flawed, and so our actions must be guided by laws both difficult of formulation and of observance. And, since the laws have been made by man, they are also flawed, which means that they will not cover all situations, that they may cause anxiety…but that the health of society requires that we attempt to observe and apply them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Except who is proposing "defense budgets [be] cut to the bone"? The answer is no one. Even under the lower funding scenario, we're still talking about a world where we're vastly outspending all potential enemies.

And we should continue to do so.

You seem to suggest that we know how much said enemies are spending...and how to calculate the amounts we are transferring to these enemies via:

1. "Bat-winged, high-flying and hard to detect, America's RQ-170 Sentinel plane is the perfect stealth drone for peering into another country's secret sites without being caught.

One was used in May to feed back live footage of the US Navy Seal raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

So probably not the sort of hardware the CIA would ever like to fall into the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps? Oops."
BBC News - Why Iran's capture of US drone will shake CIA

Of course, a different President might have blown it up....

and

2. "A newly released document from the U.S. State Department reveals that the most successful Chinese espionage operation in recent history occurred during the Clinton administration.

The document accuses Hughes Space and Communications Company of violating U.S. national security 123 times by knowingly sending detailed missile and space technology directly to the Chinese army."
Clinton and Chinese Missiles


Did you subtract the values of above from defense spending, and add it to the phantom-defense-spending of the above nations?


Atomic bomb experimentation and research didn't cost Soviet Union much, either...


And all three under Democrat administrations.....

Yes, because we know there has never been a spy craft shot down when a Republican is in office. Are you really that stupid? Also, it's pretty absurd to believe that the enemy attempting to reverse engineer something from current technology is going to really shrink that funding gap. Do you really think we don't spy on what other countries are doing as well?

While we're at it, does this mean you support withdrawing military aid to Israel, since it's well-known they take large portions of what they buy and then sell it to China.

Actually, I'm not stupid at all.

But your comment reveals that you have no real answer to the post.
Are you ready to argue that Clinton didn't give the Chinese the OK with a wink and a nod, for the financial aid in his reelection?
Or that the drone technology will move China, and Iran far ahead of where they would be?
Or that Stalin didn't now about the Manhattan Projcet and the technology before President Truman did?
Or that FDR was duped by 'Uncle Joe'?

'Cause that would pretty much define 'stupid.'


So....why do we need an expensive military program? Because Democrats give so much of it to our enemies.

 

[Unkotare]

the Cold War is over.

No thanks to lefties like you, punk.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals are just stupid people that either ignore threats out there or are just oblivious to them, maybe both. The "Cold War" comment is proof of this.

Did Russia quit targeting US cities with nukes when the so-called wall came down? No.
Has China grown its military and become more aggressive since the fall of the wall? Yes.
Is Iran a bigger threat today than they were when the USSR existed? Yes.
Is Russia destablizing the world today going back to wall coming down? Yes.

There will always be evil people in this world that are ready to steal resources from their neighbors and enslave them too. Liberals are just too stupid to understand this fact.

 

[Synthaholic]

Pacifism and the Left

Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.

Ask the 11+ al Qaeda leaders killed by Obama whether Lefties are pacifists.


Dumbass.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Your mentality shows you are a piece of shit.

You take credit for the US military winning wars.

FYI...there are more registered Republicans in the military than Democraps.

Now run along, you piece of shit.

Pacifism and the Left

Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.

Ask the 11+ al Qaeda leaders killed by Obama whether Lefties are pacifists.


Dumbass.

 

[JoeB131]

the Cold War is over.

No thanks to lefties like you, punk.

And where did you serve?

 

[Trajan]

I'd also question the claim that "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good". That's true in the right's approach to foreign policy, but it's not even remotely true to most other policy areas. You have to believe that man is inherently good to believe unregulated markets will balance themselves.

Maybe this guy no longer gets lumped with "the left"?

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.

how many ways you want to spin that? Iran no.....Iraq no, Afghanistan yes, Libya yes, Syria no.

so, does the Nobel committee now take away is award?

Oh wait, its cool now to run a kill list, the patriot act and disregard collateral damage.....I missed that memo.

 

[JoeB131]

Liberals are just stupid people that either ignore threats out there or are just oblivious to them, maybe both. The "Cold War" comment is proof of this.

Did Russia quit targeting US cities with nukes when the so-called wall came down? No.
Has China grown its military and become more aggressive since the fall of the wall? Yes.
Is Iran a bigger threat today than they were when the USSR existed? Yes.
Is Russia destablizing the world today going back to wall coming down? Yes.

There will always be evil people in this world that are ready to steal resources from their neighbors and enslave them too. Liberals are just too stupid to understand this fact.

Okay, let's start answering these questions.

1) Every missile from our side and theirs has the capability to be aimed at any number of targets in minutes. Argument fail.

2) Yes, China has become a bigger military threat- largely because guys like Mitt Romney keep sending American jobs over there in order to break the American Middle Class. Nice job, everyone!

3) Is Iran a bigger threat? Not really. Most of their military is obsolte, they've had to mothball their American made warships because they can't keep them in repair.

4) Is Russia "destablizing" the world? Can you give examples?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pacifism and the Left

Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.

Ask the 11+ al Qaeda leaders killed by Obama whether Lefties are pacifists.


Dumbass.

Another remedial for a Liberal???

I should get paid to do this....


a. In late 1962, Kennedy was still fully committed to supporting the Diem regime,
though he had some doubts even then. When Senator Mike Mansfield advised
withdrawal at that early date:

The President was too disturbed by the Senator's unexpected argument to reply to
it. He said to me later when we talked about the discussion, "I got angry with
Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself
because I found myself agreeing with him (Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers,
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970, p. 15).

b. Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F Kennedy as president. Like many ‘hawks’ in the White House, Johnson was a fervent supporter of the ‘Domino Theory’ and he was keen to support South Vietnam against the NLF:

“If we quit Vietnam tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to be fighting in San Francisco.”
Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam

c. BTW...right up until his last day in office, the rapist, Clinton, was touting WMD's in Iraq.



BTW...work on your civility.

 

[Trajan]

Liberals are just stupid people that either ignore threats out there or are just oblivious to them, maybe both. The "Cold War" comment is proof of this.

Did Russia quit targeting US cities with nukes when the so-called wall came down? No.
Has China grown its military and become more aggressive since the fall of the wall? Yes.
Is Iran a bigger threat today than they were when the USSR existed? Yes.
Is Russia destablizing the world today going back to wall coming down? Yes.

There will always be evil people in this world that are ready to steal resources from their neighbors and enslave them too. Liberals are just too stupid to understand this fact.

Okay, let's start answering these questions.

1) Every missile from our side and theirs has the capability to be aimed at any number of targets in minutes. Argument fail.



2) Yes, China has become a bigger military threat- largely because guys like Mitt Romney keep sending American jobs over there in order to break the American Middle Class. Nice job, everyone!



3) Is Iran a bigger threat? Not really. Most of their military is obsolte, they've had to mothball their American made warships because they can't keep them in repair.

4) Is Russia "destablizing" the world? Can you give examples?

1) Every missile from our side and theirs has the capability to be aimed at any number of targets in minutes. Argument fail.

no, explanation fail..... who cares? the capability exists...and START was stupid.

2) Yes, China has become a bigger military threat- largely because guys like Mitt Romney keep sending American jobs over there in order to break the American Middle Class. Nice job, everyone!

means what exactly?

3) Is Iran a bigger threat? Not really. Most of their military is obsolte, they've had to mothball their American made warships because they can't keep them in repair.

means squat, that is not what constitutes the threat....the existential threat Iran

poses to the ME is huge,1 example- an arms race, that seems to escape you, thinking beyond snappy comebacks is hard apparently.

4) Is Russia "destablizing" the world? Can you give examples?

Georgia? Iran? Syria?

 

[JoeB131]

Pacifism and the Left

Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.

Ask the 11+ al Qaeda leaders killed by Obama whether Lefties are pacifists.


Dumbass.

Another remedial for a Liberal???

I should get paid to do this....


a. In late 1962, Kennedy was still fully committed to supporting the Diem regime,
though he had some doubts even then. When Senator Mike Mansfield advised
withdrawal at that early date:

The President was too disturbed by the Senator's unexpected argument to reply to
it. He said to me later when we talked about the discussion, "I got angry with
Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself
because I found myself agreeing with him (Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers,
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970, p. 15).

b. Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F Kennedy as president. Like many ‘hawks’ in the White House, Johnson was a fervent supporter of the ‘Domino Theory’ and he was keen to support South Vietnam against the NLF:

“If we quit Vietnam tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to be fighting in San Francisco.”
Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam

c. BTW...right up until his last day in office, the rapist, Clinton, was touting WMD's in Iraq.

BTW...work on your civility.

What does any of that have to do with his statement that Obama killed 11 Al Qaeda members?

 

[JoeB131]

[
Okay, let's start answering these questions.

1) Every missile from our side and theirs has the capability to be aimed at any number of targets in minutes. Argument fail.

no, explanation fail..... who cares? the capability exists...and START was stupid.

You're saying Reagan was stupid? BLAPSHEMER!!!!

Realistic answer time, guy. The Russians were never going to give up their nukes. They've been invaded three times in the last century, they aren't going to give up that awesome advantage. What we did was lower the number of nukes and get them to be a little less itchy on the trigger finger.

2) Yes, China has become a bigger military threat- largely because guys like Mitt Romney keep sending American jobs over there in order to break the American Middle Class. Nice job, everyone!

means what exactly?

Exactly what it says. China is only a bigger threat now because western corporations, despite Tinaminen Square, despite China's human rights abuses, decided, that, screw it, those Chinese will work for $3.00 a day, so let's move all our factories over there and pour billions into the country, turning it from a third world country into a modern power.

3) Is Iran a bigger threat? Not really. Most of their military is obsolte, they've had to mothball their American made warships because they can't keep them in repair.

means squat, that is not what constitutes the threat....the existential threat Iran
poses to the ME is huge,1 example- an arms race, that seems to escape you, thinking beyond snappy comebacks is hard apparently.

Iran poses no threat to the US. It poses a threat to Israel, but frankly, that isn't our problem.

the only reason we care about what happens in that hornet's nest is because we are dependent on oil and because the Zionists have too much influence in politics in this country. Otherwise, it isn't a problem.

4) Is Russia "destablizing" the world? Can you give examples?

Georgia? Iran? Syria?

Georgia- A place within their former borders. Who cares.

Iran- Again, only a threat to Israel, not our problem.

For Syria- Not our problem, but if Obama intervenes, would you back him? I'm guessing...Not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.

Ask the 11+ al Qaeda leaders killed by Obama whether Lefties are pacifists.


Dumbass.

Another remedial for a Liberal???

I should get paid to do this....


a. In late 1962, Kennedy was still fully committed to supporting the Diem regime,
though he had some doubts even then. When Senator Mike Mansfield advised
withdrawal at that early date:

The President was too disturbed by the Senator's unexpected argument to reply to
it. He said to me later when we talked about the discussion, "I got angry with
Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself
because I found myself agreeing with him (Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers,
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970, p. 15).

b. Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F Kennedy as president. Like many ‘hawks’ in the White House, Johnson was a fervent supporter of the ‘Domino Theory’ and he was keen to support South Vietnam against the NLF:

“If we quit Vietnam tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to be fighting in San Francisco.”
Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam

c. BTW...right up until his last day in office, the rapist, Clinton, was touting WMD's in Iraq.

BTW...work on your civility.

What does any of that have to do with his statement that Obama killed 11 Al Qaeda members?

C'mon.... I know you're Erroneous Joe...but I believe you know how to read.

Case in point: "Republicans start wars, Democrats win them."
Did you miss that in his post?


Would you like to agree with pre-schooler on that?

C'mon, Erroneous,...you take a shot at Republicans every time you can...so how about it:
"Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.?

True or false?

 

[JoeB131]

Another remedial for a Liberal???

I should get paid to do this....


a. In late 1962, Kennedy was still fully committed to supporting the Diem regime,
though he had some doubts even then. When Senator Mike Mansfield advised
withdrawal at that early date:

The President was too disturbed by the Senator's unexpected argument to reply to
it. He said to me later when we talked about the discussion, "I got angry with
Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself
because I found myself agreeing with him (Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers,
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970, p. 15).

b. Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F Kennedy as president. Like many ‘hawks’ in the White House, Johnson was a fervent supporter of the ‘Domino Theory’ and he was keen to support South Vietnam against the NLF:

“If we quit Vietnam tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to be fighting in San Francisco.”
Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam

c. BTW...right up until his last day in office, the rapist, Clinton, was touting WMD's in Iraq.

BTW...work on your civility.

What does any of that have to do with his statement that Obama killed 11 Al Qaeda members?

C'mon.... I know you're Erroneous Joe...but I believe you know how to read.

Case in point: "Republicans start wars, Democrats win them."
Did you miss that in his post?


Would you like to agree with pre-schooler on that?

C'mon, Erroneous,...you take a shot at Republicans every time you can...so how about it:
"Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.?

True or false?

Again, not sure what your lame answers had anything to do with that statement, either. Vietnam started with Eisenhower going along with propping up the Saigon Government even after being told that the Vietnamese would elect Ho Chi Mihn if a national election occurred.

And, yeah, Clinton stated that Saddam had WMD's, but he didn't invade in violation of world opinion to find out he was wrong.

The last war "won" by a republican was maybe the Spanish American War. Sorry, I don't count Gulf War I as a "win" as we had to go back and do it again 12 years later.

Actually, what my parents used to say back in the 1970's was that "Democrats brought us wars, Republicans brought us Recessions".

now Republicans bring us both.

Which is what happens when you let your party get hijacked by Plutocrats and Theocrats.

 

[Polk]

And we should continue to do so.

You seem to suggest that we know how much said enemies are spending...and how to calculate the amounts we are transferring to these enemies via:

1. "Bat-winged, high-flying and hard to detect, America's RQ-170 Sentinel plane is the perfect stealth drone for peering into another country's secret sites without being caught.

One was used in May to feed back live footage of the US Navy Seal raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

So probably not the sort of hardware the CIA would ever like to fall into the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps? Oops."
BBC News - Why Iran's capture of US drone will shake CIA

Of course, a different President might have blown it up....

and

2. "A newly released document from the U.S. State Department reveals that the most successful Chinese espionage operation in recent history occurred during the Clinton administration.

The document accuses Hughes Space and Communications Company of violating U.S. national security 123 times by knowingly sending detailed missile and space technology directly to the Chinese army."
Clinton and Chinese Missiles


Did you subtract the values of above from defense spending, and add it to the phantom-defense-spending of the above nations?


Atomic bomb experimentation and research didn't cost Soviet Union much, either...


And all three under Democrat administrations.....

Yes, because we know there has never been a spy craft shot down when a Republican is in office. Are you really that stupid? Also, it's pretty absurd to believe that the enemy attempting to reverse engineer something from current technology is going to really shrink that funding gap. Do you really think we don't spy on what other countries are doing as well?

While we're at it, does this mean you support withdrawing military aid to Israel, since it's well-known they take large portions of what they buy and then sell it to China.

Actually, I'm not stupid at all.

But your comment reveals that you have no real answer to the post.
Are you ready to argue that Clinton didn't give the Chinese the OK with a wink and a nod, for the financial aid in his reelection?
Or that the drone technology will move China, and Iran far ahead of where they would be?
Or that Stalin didn't now about the Manhattan Projcet and the technology before President Truman did?
Or that FDR was duped by 'Uncle Joe'?

'Cause that would pretty much define 'stupid.'


So....why do we need an expensive military program? Because Democrats give so much of it to our enemies.

I make quick replies to your posts because there's no point getting down in the weeds. You have this crazy belief that half the population of the country is a fifth column trying to destroy it, and no amount of evidence or reason is going to convince you otherwise.

 

[Polk]

The real truth of this thread? The right has this Manichaean worldview that since they're hyper-aggressive and crave war, it must mean those who don't share that view are cowards.

And this post represents the essential nature of our debate.

I plead guilty to "The right has this Manichaean worldview" as opposed to the moral relativism of the Left.

The American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc.

The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.”

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden. This view, however, holds that life is complicated and man is flawed, and so our actions must be guided by laws both difficult of formulation and of observance. And, since the laws have been made by man, they are also flawed, which means that they will not cover all situations, that they may cause anxiety…but that the health of society requires that we attempt to observe and apply them.

Your ignorance of history is only surpassed by your ignorance of philosophy. The "Golden Rule" isn't a Christian idea. It's been a core tenet of belief going back to the beginnings of recorded history. It's in the Code of Hammurabi. It's in the writing of Confucius. The Egyptians had a god (Maat) that was an embodiment of the idea. Classical Greek philosophers also stated the idea.

 

[Polk]

What does any of that have to do with his statement that Obama killed 11 Al Qaeda members?

C'mon.... I know you're Erroneous Joe...but I believe you know how to read.

Case in point: "Republicans start wars, Democrats win them."
Did you miss that in his post?


Would you like to agree with pre-schooler on that?

C'mon, Erroneous,...you take a shot at Republicans every time you can...so how about it:
"Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.?

True or false?

Again, not sure what your lame answers had anything to do with that statement, either. Vietnam started with Eisenhower going along with propping up the Saigon Government even after being told that the Vietnamese would elect Ho Chi Mihn if a national election occurred.

And, yeah, Clinton stated that Saddam had WMD's, but he didn't invade in violation of world opinion to find out he was wrong.

The last war "won" by a republican was maybe the Spanish American War. Sorry, I don't count Gulf War I as a "win" as we had to go back and do it again 12 years later.

Actually, what my parents used to say back in the 1970's was that "Democrats brought us wars, Republicans brought us Recessions".

now Republicans bring us both.

Which is what happens when you let your party get hijacked by Plutocrats and Theocrats.

I wouldn't tout world opinion as being the relevant factor here. World opinion can be wrong, and if it is wrong, we shouldn't follow it just because it's popular. The question we should have been asking is what would we gain from invading Iraq, and the answer even at that time was obvious: nothing.