The Greatest Antiwar Ad I've Ever Seen

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

That is a very well-made video.

And this is why your Hero hasn't a hope in hell of getting elected.

Man, that was awesome!!! Im voting for RP and his crazy ass son fo sho!!!

Originally posted by: Smiling Canadian
And this is why your Hero hasn't a hope in hell of getting elected.

True.

You can't have your name attached to something that calls the US "terrorists" even if it's in an attempt to prove a point, and expect to win your party's nomination.

I want to make this clear:

It isnt the military's job to do Nation building. So when you talk occupation, you need to blame the civilian leadership as to why those troops are still stuck in foreign countries. They are in charge, period. The mantle of leadership and responsibility lies firmly on their shoulders, not the military's. Therefore, the video focuses way too much on "occupation" instead of staying on point about the civilian leadership.

Yes, I understand Paul slams The Won for that, but doesnt have enough emphasis.

However, there will always be a need for a transition from military to civilian control after the enemy's armed forces have been destroyed, but dont assume Soldiers want to stay there to run the country.

We have more important shit to do, like plan on who's ass we need to kick next.

That video dodges an obvious condition in it's scenario...

I am NOT defending a war or occupation based around forced "liberation", however do we really need to explain the differences between living under our government and that of the Taliban/Saddam/communists?

In reality, you have an occupation from a democratic government (thats pumps BILLIONS into your infrastructure, security, government etc and is TRYING to withdraw), which was preceded by a group that stones a little girl for going to school (still not desirable, however...). In this video, you have the opposite... Apples and oranges. The video really doesn't make a valid point at all.
Post edited by Irrenarzt at 10/10/2011 1:03:41 PM

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt


I am NOT defending a war or occupation based around forced "liberation", however do we really need to explain the differences between living under our government and that of the Taliban/Saddam/Communists?

In reality Apples and oranges. The video really doesn't make a valid point at all.

Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

The sooner politicians who think like you get it through their head that it is not our right, our obligation, or our job to police the world from evil dictators, the sooner we can get back to using our military for what it is actually intended for.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
The sooner politicians who think like you get it through their head that it is not our right, our obligation, or our job to police the world from evil dictators, the sooner we can get back to using our military for what it is actually intended for.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

We entered into NATO and the U.N. and with that comes obligation to do so.

In fact, failure to follow through with the oblications we as a world made, allowed Iraq to fester after the First Gulf War.

It's also the thing that placed a formal, recognized Israeli state in the Middle East.

It's also the same thing that feeds millions of starving human beings.

Surely DieselFuel, you're not saying that we should not only ignore our Treaty obligations but in the process allow millions to die from starvation and genocide?

Your thoughts?

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

That's not what I said, that's how you chose to interpret twist it.

As I clearly said, I'm not defending a war of liberation or occupation... but I'm not going to pretend the video is trying to argue it with a valid point. The scenario and the reality of the what happened are so opposite that the video fails to draw a legitimate comparison. How is the freedom loving state of Texas being occupied by the Chinese even close to the same thing as a beaten down Afghanistan being occupied by Americans?
Post edited by Irrenarzt at 10/10/2011 1:52:52 PM

This is about foreign policy and in regards to ALL foreign military presence, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

That's not what I said, that's how you chose to interpret twist it.

As I clearly said, I'm not defending a war of liberation or occupation... but I'm not going to pretend the video is trying to argue it with a valid point. The scenario and the reality of the what happened are so opposite that the video fails to draw a legitimate comparison. How is the freedom loving state of Texas being occupied by the Chinese even close to the same thing as a beaten down Afghanistan being occupied by Americans?

More often than not, perception is reality. I think that's important to take note of.

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: subroutine
This is about foreign policy and in regards to ALL foreign military presence, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.

Playing devil's advocate...

So ir Ron Paul suggesting we back out of NATO and the U.N. and their commitments to "peace-keeping" missions, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, etc?

Originally posted by: Pillbug

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
The sooner politicians who think like you get it through their head that it is not our right, our obligation, or our job to police the world from evil dictators, the sooner we can get back to using our military for what it is actually intended for.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

We entered into NATO and the U.N. and with that comes obligation to do so.

In fact, failure to follow through with the oblications we as a world made, allowed Iraq to fester after the First Gulf War.

It's also the thing that placed a formal, recognized Israeli state in the Middle East.

It's also the same thing that feeds millions of starving human beings.

Surely DieselFuel, you're not saying that we should not only ignore our Treaty obligations but in the process allow millions to die from starvation and genocide?

Your thoughts?

There's a simple solution for this:

Withdraw from NATO and the UN. Problem solved.

They don't provide us with any tangible benefit anyhow and are only a drain on our resources.

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

I expected that answer from you NBF.

I'm wondering if BDF's will be the same.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

Yawn.

We entered into NATO and the U.N. and with that comes obligation to do so.

And like I have said over and over, we are bound by our treaties which is why we should withdraw from all of them.

In fact, failure to follow through with the oblications we as a world made, allowed Iraq to fester after the First Gulf War.

Suggesting it 'festered' seems to include the implication we were justified. Uh, no.

[Quote[
It's also the thing that placed a formal, recognized Israeli state in the Middle East.


Oh, joy. Thanks for reminding me about that fiscal anchor.

It's also the same thing that feeds millions of starving human beings.

Join the Peace Corps if you care so much.

Surely DieselFuel, you're not saying that we should not only ignore our Treaty obligations but in the process allow millions to die from starvation and genocide?

As a community, I believe we should do what we can. As a federal government, I believe we should stick to protecting our borders and infrastructure.

Considering you've complained like a bitch before on my method of separetely quoting someone to address each of their points in lieu of simply addressing each with its own paragraph, I'd just like to point out your hypocrisy.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

Yawn.

Yawn.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

We entered into NATO and the U.N. and with that comes obligation to do so.

And like I have said over and over, we are bound by our treaties which is why we should withdraw from all of them.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

In fact, failure to follow through with the oblications we as a world made, allowed Iraq to fester after the First Gulf War.

Suggesting it 'festered' seems to include the implication we were justified. Uh, no.

First of all, Uh, yes. Second of all, it wasn't "we" the United States, it was "we" the United Nations who didn't remove Saddam when we had the chance, and hence, let that country fester and subsequently allowed GWB's administration to get us back into that mess a second time.

So, uh, yeah.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

It's also the thing that placed a formal, recognized Israeli state in the Middle East.

Oh, joy. Thanks for reminding me about that fiscal anchor.

Agree.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

It's also the same thing that feeds millions of starving human beings.

Join the Peace Corps if you care so much.

I don't. But I'm just pointing out the obvious, and I like how instead of admitting you're a cold, heartless fuck who couldn't give two shits about helping 3rd world people, you simply deflect it upon me. I admit I'd rather not help them via the UN or NATO. You... you deflect.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Surely DieselFuel, you're not saying that we should not only ignore our Treaty obligations but in the process allow millions to die from starvation and genocide?

As a community, I believe we should do what we can. As a federal government, I believe we should stick to protecting our borders and infrastructure.

You can't have it both ways, and that's what you've asked for.

"I believe we should do what we can." => "stick to protecting our borders and infrastructure."

Fail.

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

That's not what I said, that's how you chose to interpret twist it.

As I clearly said, I'm not defending a war of liberation or occupation... but I'm not going to pretend the video is trying to argue it with a valid point. The scenario and the reality of the what happened are so opposite that the video fails to draw a legitimate comparison. How is the freedom loving state of Texas being occupied by the Chinese even close to the same thing as a beaten down Afghanistan being occupied by Americans?

More often than not, perception is reality. I think that's important to take note of.

What's the perception? That a shoe being a shoe, it should be able to fit any foot size?

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

That's not what I said, that's how you chose to interpret twist it.

As I clearly said, I'm not defending a war of liberation or occupation... but I'm not going to pretend the video is trying to argue it with a valid point. The scenario and the reality of the what happened are so opposite that the video fails to draw a legitimate comparison. How is the freedom loving state of Texas being occupied by the Chinese even close to the same thing as a beaten down Afghanistan being occupied by Americans?

More often than not, perception is reality. I think that's important to take note of.

What's the perception? That a shoe being a shoe, it should be able to fit any foot size?

The perception of the local populace as being occupied by foreigners. Even if some foreign nation had a base in the States and wasn't actively killing anyone, but was still patrolling, do you think that would be perceived by the average joes in America as a positive or friendly presence?

My answer is no. I, for one, would be pissed and would hope that those foreigners would die.

Post edited by Nathan Bedford Forrest at 10/10/2011 2:37:59 PM

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

The perception of the local populace as being occupied by foreigners. Even if some foreign nation had a base in the States and wasn't actively killing anyone, but was still patrolling, do you think that would be perceived by the average joes in America as a positive or friendly presence?

My answer is no. I, for one, would be pissed and would hope that those foreigners would die.

You're comparing your current, favorable living conditions to one under occupation. The same can't be said for our current involvements... While occupation isn't desired, neither was their past. The fact they can weigh the difference makes this scenario pointless.

Apples and oranges are both good for you, but they're completely different fruit.

Originally posted by: Pillbug

Originally posted by: Smiling Canadian
And this is why your Hero hasn't a hope in hell of getting elected.

True.

You can't have your name attached to something that calls the US "terrorists" even if it's in an attempt to prove a point, and expect to win your party's nomination.

So true....never mind the message or the content. It's all about the false imagery of words to most people.

Popularity, for the mere sake of being popular....and Patriotism, for the sake of being excessively nationalistic.

That's how America votes and thinks apparently.

Little do they realize that under this current definition, this rigidly defined definition, that every single one of our founding fathers were considered "Terrorists" against their government.......especially against the British Government during the revolutionary war.

But lucky for them mindless terminology didn't sway their deductive reasoning capabilities....unlike most American's who have lost their critical thinking capabilities (or never had them to begin with).

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
I want to make this clear:

It isnt the military's job to do Nation building. So when you talk occupation, you need to blame the civilian leadership as to why those troops are still stuck in foreign countries. They are in charge, period. The mantle of leadership and responsibility lies firmly on their shoulders, not the military's. Therefore, the video focuses way too much on "occupation" instead of staying on point about the civilian leadership.

Yes, I understand Paul slams The Won for that, but doesnt have enough emphasis.

However, there will always be a need for a transition from military to civilian control after the enemy's armed forces have been destroyed, but dont assume Soldiers want to stay there to run the country.

We have more important shit to do, like plan on who's ass we need to kick next.

Fair point....

It amazes me how this country has lost every single fucking war it has been in since WWII, but has primarily won (with a fer minor exceptions) every single battle.

Our military kicks fucking ass...undoubtedly the best this world has ever seen. Unfortunately, it's always the higher level bureaucrat people, who aren't giving their lives, aren't shedding blood, and have no real skin the game, who systematically find a way to ruin everything.

Not sure why that surprises me....these are the same people who have destroyed everything else in this country too...be it our economy, our immigration/trade policy, or the validity and legitimacy of any and all regulatory enforcement.

No one is blaming the troops for following poor orders....sadly that's become their job. Everyone knows who is to blame and it is the policy makers in Washington.
Post edited by Mockery at 10/10/2011 2:57:50 PM

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt
That video dodges an obvious condition in it's scenario...

I am NOT defending a war or occupation based around forced "liberation", however do we really need to explain the differences between living under our government and that of the Taliban/Saddam/communists?

In reality, you have an occupation from a democratic government (thats pumps BILLIONS into your infrastructure, security, government etc and is TRYING to withdraw), which was preceded by a group that stones a little girl for going to school (still not desirable, however...). In this video, you have the opposite... Apples and oranges. The video really doesn't make a valid point at all.

Fair point...they don't hate us for meddling in "their individual" decision making and rebuilding their country, even though they didn't ask us to, in "Our" image.

They hate America for our FREEDDDOOOOMMMM!!!!!

They very freedom that even we don't really have that much of anymore....and over the past decade have been quickly giving away, like a burn sale, to the point of looking just like the Taliban.

Originally posted by: Pillbug

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
The sooner politicians who think like you get it through their head that it is not our right, our obligation, or our job to police the world from evil dictators, the sooner we can get back to using our military for what it is actually intended for.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

We entered into NATO and the U.N. and with that comes obligation to do so.

In fact, failure to follow through with the oblications we as a world made, allowed Iraq to fester after the First Gulf War.

It's also the thing that placed a formal, recognized Israeli state in the Middle East.

It's also the same thing that feeds millions of starving human beings.

Surely DieselFuel, you're not saying that we should not only ignore our Treaty obligations but in the process allow millions to die from starvation and genocide?

Your thoughts?

Neat idea.....

So we are only following NATO and the UN interests, even though we are doing so by constantly defying what they vote on and have given approval for.

Point being, under your scenario you make it sound like the UN desperately wanted us to go to Iraq this time around.

Not exactly what I remember....but ok.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pillbug

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
The sooner politicians who think like you get it through their head that it is not our right, our obligation, or our job to police the world from evil dictators, the sooner we can get back to using our military for what it is actually intended for.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

We entered into NATO and the U.N. and with that comes obligation to do so.

In fact, failure to follow through with the oblications we as a world made, allowed Iraq to fester after the First Gulf War.

It's also the thing that placed a formal, recognized Israeli state in the Middle East.

It's also the same thing that feeds millions of starving human beings.

Surely DieselFuel, you're not saying that we should not only ignore our Treaty obligations but in the process allow millions to die from starvation and genocide?

Your thoughts?

Neat idea.....

So we are only following NATO and the UN interests, even though we are doing so by constantly defying what they vote on and have given approval for.

Point being, under your scenario you make it sound like the UN desperately wanted us to go to Iraq this time around.

Not exactly what I remember....but ok.

Not at all Mockery. I didn't say that, nor did I infer it.

What I did say, was exactly this:

The UN was responsible for getting "us" into Gulf War I.
The UN was responsible for setting up Israel in the M.E.

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

That's not what I said, that's how you chose to interpret twist it.

As I clearly said, I'm not defending a war of liberation or occupation... but I'm not going to pretend the video is trying to argue it with a valid point. The scenario and the reality of the what happened are so opposite that the video fails to draw a legitimate comparison. How is the freedom loving state of Texas being occupied by the Chinese even close to the same thing as a beaten down Afghanistan being occupied by Americans?

Beaten down....and Freedom......is largely subjective terminology.

Maybe Texas is oppressive because it doesn't promote Sharia Law.....making Muslims feel uncomfortable.

Maybe Texas is uncomfortable to the Chinese because it doesn't serve enough dumplings, doesn't speak Mandarin, and holds a shit ton of their debt without any real means of paying it back.

It's all based on the eyes of the beholder....people in this world can openly (try to) justify anything with enough manipulative wording and properly placed visuals.

A lot of people in Afghanistan don't believe that we are there to "free them" but are there to ensure our own interests.......

In some ways Afghanistan has far more freedoms than even we do in America.......especially in regards to gun ownership, the war on drugs, excessive regulation, and taxes.

They also have some extremely fundamentalist driven shit heads running ship over there......but you can see how its all in the eyes of the beholer.

Originally posted by: Mockery
Fair point...they don't hate us for meddling in "their individual" decision making and rebuilding their country, even though they didn't ask us to, in "Our" image.

They hate America for our FREEDDDOOOOMMMM!!!!!

They very freedom that even we don't really have that much of anymore....and over the past decade have been quickly giving away, like a burn sale, to the point of looking just like the Taliban.

Again, not what I'm trying to say at all... I'm just being a realist.

They video takes two completely different ideas, and uses one as a way to be dramatic and unrealistically amplify the evil of the other, all to shake the viewers emotion. It's called political propaganda, and represents this unfairly.

Originally posted by: Pillbug

What I did say, was exactly this:

The UN was responsible for getting "us" into Gulf War I.
The UN was responsible for setting up Israel in the M.E.

And I agree....

pointing out that either we keep consistent and go along with the UN's wishes.....or we completely disregard what the UN has to say and do our own thing.

In regards to the latest Iraq occupation, we clearly did just that and since we opted to do our own thing, why not start doing our own thing that is actually in our best interest?

Some believe we did just that by going to the Middle East and occupying and rebuilding it in our image...be it pro Democracy/Capitalism/Western ideal......or just people who would be happy to trade oil with us.

Others of us argue whether that policy was actually in our best interest and if we weren't better off just buying oil from Saddam outright and putting that extra money and effort into our own country.

I honestly believe that with the trillions we spent in Iraq we could have paid Saddam to live in a solid gold mansion in Beverly Hills.....

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

That's not what I said, that's how you chose to interpret twist it.

As I clearly said, I'm not defending a war of liberation or occupation... but I'm not going to pretend the video is trying to argue it with a valid point. The scenario and the reality of the what happened are so opposite that the video fails to draw a legitimate comparison. How is the freedom loving state of Texas being occupied by the Chinese even close to the same thing as a beaten down Afghanistan being occupied by Americans?

More often than not, perception is reality. I think that's important to take note of.

What's the perception? That a shoe being a shoe, it should be able to fit any foot size?

The perception of the local populace as being occupied by foreigners. Even if some foreign nation had a base in the States and wasn't actively killing anyone, but was still patrolling, do you think that would be perceived by the average joes in America as a positive or friendly presence?

My answer is no. I, for one, would be pissed and would hope that those foreigners would die.

So you're the guy who would've been taking potshots at La Fayette and the other French countrymen fighting with the States during the American Revolution?

Nice.

Originally posted by: Allen

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

That's not what I said, that's how you chose to interpret twist it.

As I clearly said, I'm not defending a war of liberation or occupation... but I'm not going to pretend the video is trying to argue it with a valid point. The scenario and the reality of the what happened are so opposite that the video fails to draw a legitimate comparison. How is the freedom loving state of Texas being occupied by the Chinese even close to the same thing as a beaten down Afghanistan being occupied by Americans?

More often than not, perception is reality. I think that's important to take note of.

What's the perception? That a shoe being a shoe, it should be able to fit any foot size?

The perception of the local populace as being occupied by foreigners. Even if some foreign nation had a base in the States and wasn't actively killing anyone, but was still patrolling, do you think that would be perceived by the average joes in America as a positive or friendly presence?

My answer is no. I, for one, would be pissed and would hope that those foreigners would die.

So you're the guy who would've been taking potshots at La Fayette and the other French countrymen fighting with the States during the American Revolution?

Nice.

I have a feeling that a foreign entity being here to help you fight off another foreign entity, that you both clearly hate more, would take some sort of a higher precedence in a lot of peoples minds.

But if the French didn't GTFO after the war was over (and kept on coming over)....perhaps I could understand an occasional potshot or two.

That would become anaologous to what Stalin did during his occupation of the soft underbelly of Europe.

I'm here to get rid of Hitlers army.......and to permanently occupy and control your country for the next half century.

Yep....

"There is no such thing as long term allies. There are only long term interests." ~Henry Kissinger

Perhaps the most honest thing anyone has ever admitted to.

Originally posted by: Allen

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Odd, you state with your first line you are not defending war, then spend the rest of the post defending war.

That's not what I said, that's how you chose to interpret twist it.

As I clearly said, I'm not defending a war of liberation or occupation... but I'm not going to pretend the video is trying to argue it with a valid point. The scenario and the reality of the what happened are so opposite that the video fails to draw a legitimate comparison. How is the freedom loving state of Texas being occupied by the Chinese even close to the same thing as a beaten down Afghanistan being occupied by Americans?

More often than not, perception is reality. I think that's important to take note of.

What's the perception? That a shoe being a shoe, it should be able to fit any foot size?

The perception of the local populace as being occupied by foreigners. Even if some foreign nation had a base in the States and wasn't actively killing anyone, but was still patrolling, do you think that would be perceived by the average joes in America as a positive or friendly presence?

My answer is no. I, for one, would be pissed and would hope that those foreigners would die.

So you're the guy who would've been taking potshots at La Fayette and the other French countrymen fighting with the States during the American Revolution?

Nice.

I would not. That situation is incompatible. La Fayette and the French didn't come over here and start the war. They came to assist after being petitioned by the Continental Congress. That's totally different.

I'd have been the guy shooting at Jackson and Houston at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend with the Red Sticks.

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
I want to make this clear:

It isnt the military's job to do Nation building. So when you talk occupation, you need to blame the civilian leadership as to why those troops are still stuck in foreign countries. They are in charge, period. The mantle of leadership and responsibility lies firmly on their shoulders, not the military's. Therefore, the video focuses way too much on "occupation" instead of staying on point about the civilian leadership.

Yes, I understand Paul slams The Won for that, but doesnt have enough emphasis.

However, there will always be a need for a transition from military to civilian control after the enemy's armed forces have been destroyed, but dont assume Soldiers want to stay there to run the country.

We have more important shit to do, like plan on who's ass we need to kick next.

normal people understood the Ron Paul ad targeted policies, not soldiers themselves.

PTSD alters your perception of reality, we forgive you. Moving along.

As long as the governments (and they are elected at that) of those countries want our troops there, then I refuse to buy into that type of antiwar argument.

We didn't really start the war in Afghanistan either. We just sided with the Northern Alliance and swung the favor of power. We've stayed at their request to help them.
Post edited by Allen at 10/10/2011 3:47:25 PM

Originally posted by: Allen
As long as the governments (and they are elected at that) of those countries want our troops there, then I refuse to buy into that type of antiwar argument.

We didn't really start the war in Afghanistan either. We just sided with the Northern Alliance and swung the favor of power. We've stayed at their request to help them.

You mean the puppet governments?

Fuck them, whether they are legitimate or not. This foreign policy crushed Rome and it will crush us if we don't alter it.

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: Allen
As long as the governments (and they are elected at that) of those countries want our troops there, then I refuse to buy into that type of antiwar argument.

We didn't really start the war in Afghanistan either. We just sided with the Northern Alliance and swung the favor of power. We've stayed at their request to help them.

Oh boy....talk about a stretch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

The soviets didn't start a war either. They were just there on behalf of the goats and sheep that were tired of being molested.

Hey dumbfuck, which part of "occupation" occurs without Soldiers? What does "anti-war" actually mean and would wars be fought by people like you?



Hayzues Christo, can you ever be not so absolutely and blatantly fucking stupid, Malaria??

==============

Allen, I see a flaw in your premise. Not that I am speaking for Johnny Reb, but your comparison places him in support of the King [from back then], a totalitarian gvt which he clearly would never support based upon my impression of him.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Hey dumbfuck, which part of "occupation" occurs without Soldiers? What does "anti-war" actually mean and would wars be fought by people like you?



Hayzues Christo, can you ever be not so absolutely and blatantly fucking stupid, Malaria??

==============

Allen, I see a flaw in your premise. Not that I am speaking for Johnny Reb, but your comparison places him in support of the King [from back then], a totalitarian gvt which he clearly would never support based upon my impression of him.

You are correct, sir!

There are very few wars in all of human history that I'd have ever willingly taken part in. Every one of them would have been defensive. The major ones that come to mind are:

The American Revolution on behalf of the Colonies (most likely Virginia, at that point in my families history)
The War Between the States on behalf of Alabama
Any of the Indian Wars on behalf of the Indians
The Scottish Wars for Independence on behalf of the Scots
The Troubles and Irish Civil War on behalf of the IRA (but I would not condone or be involved in terror or war against civilians)

That's about all that I can think of based off of my knowledge...

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

The only difference is that Americans are not committing jihad against China with the support of the U.S. government. If we were doing that, then I'd say China has every right to protect it's citizens.

There's a really big disconnect with thinking everyone will be wonderful trading partners. Take a look at Obama's rhetoric before becoming President. He said Bush alienated ally's and wouldn't talk to our enemies. As far as I can see, Obama has made zero gains with our enemies, because they still are and I think he's actually alienated our ally's even more.

Now comes Paul with a similar kind of policy, but worse because he doesn't explain how peaceful trade is possible in reality. It is not! I'm not buying your hippy bullshit lies man.

The video sucked and just pushes me to vote for someone else. I think he should really keep his mouth shut about foreign policy. Every President will have to use the stick and they are fortunate if they don't. What makes Paul think he's so fucking special?

For somebody who thinks pretty clearly NBF, you sure have the blinders on when it comes to certain aspects of your political beliefs. I love everything about Paul, except his opinion about use of force.

Originally posted by: Cocytus


The only difference is that Americans are not committing jihad against China with the support of the U.S. government. If we were doing that, then I'd say China has every right to protect it's citizens.

There's a really big disconnect with thinking everyone will be wonderful trading partners. Take a look at Obama's rhetoric before becoming President. He said Bush alienated ally's and wouldn't talk to our enemies. As far as I can see, Obama has made zero gains with our enemies, because they still are and I think he's actually alienated our ally's even more.

Now comes Paul with a similar kind of policy, but worse because he doesn't explain how peaceful trade is possible in reality. It is not! I'm not buying your hippy bullshit lies man.

The video sucked and just pushes me to vote for someone else. I think he should really keep his mouth shut about foreign policy. Every President will have to use the stick and they are fortunate if they don't. What makes Paul think he's so fucking special?

For somebody who thinks pretty clearly NBF, you sure have the blinders on when it comes to certain aspects of your political beliefs. I love everything about Paul, except his opinion about use of force.

Most of American history, pre-1861 was peaceful and included prosperous trade with all of the world. The War of 1861 was caused by unfair trade policies within the States and not without.

Many of the Austrians (of which Paul is one) theorize that the ideal trade situation for peace and prosperity is open trade with everyone with no more than a 19.5% uniform tariff. Interestingly, this theory is supported by early American history.

Post edited by Nathan Bedford Forrest at 10/10/2011 4:06:42 PM

_________________
"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration - and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors." J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864

Originally posted by: Irrenarzt
That video dodges an obvious condition in it's scenario...

I am NOT defending a war or occupation based around forced "liberation", however do we really need to explain the differences between living under our government and that of the Taliban/Saddam/communists?

In reality, you have an occupation from a democratic government (thats pumps BILLIONS into your infrastructure, security, government etc and is TRYING to withdraw), which was preceded by a group that stones a little girl for going to school (still not desirable, however...). In this video, you have the opposite... Apples and oranges. The video really doesn't make a valid point at all.

Agreed