Vote Hillary For War!
Reason magazine takes a look at something I missed in the Democratic Party convention: A speech by a retired general urging a vote for Hillary because of her predisposition for war:
"With Hillary Clinton as our commander-in-chief," he shouted in language that doubtless warmed the hearts of interventionists of both major parties, "the United States will continue to be that indispensable, transformational power in the world." Not only that, but the Pentagon would be able to relax, knowing that the military-industrial complex would never have to pinch pennies: "Our armed forces will be stronger. They will have the finest weapons, the greatest equipment."
Of course, he didn't quite say it like that. He put it under the auspices of national security and patriotism. Scary stuff indeed. I'm actually glad I missed it.
As Reason points out, this was totally inappropriate.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 1:11 PM
24 comments
24 Comments:
Fred, what's your take on the radical Muslim movement? The ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram type stuff.
Should we (along with other countries) oppose them or should we let them do as they like outside our borders?
We need to stop coming up with excuses to attack other pwople and countries. I have no problem with killing ISIS, alqueda and such, but what we're doing now hasn't done anything to make anyone safer. It might well be making matters worse.
I have few problemss with Trump's proposal to shut off our borders to muslims. I had the same idea myself after 9/11. I was surprised to read recently that after the Tehran U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter shut off our borders to either Iranians, Muslims or both, and that was under less dire circumstances than 9/11. I didn't remember that but seemed to me no harm done.
I guess it was just Iranians Carter banned from the country:
http://tinyurl.com/hnupoex
I need to go hang a door. I'll come back later this PM and respond to the rest of your post but thought you might like to review Carter's actions during the Iranian hostage crisis.
http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/
The ban was against citizens of a specific country, not against members of a religion.
I haven't totally thought it through, but I don't have much of a problem with banning immigrants from any predominantly Muslim country, whether in Africa, or the middle east. To begin with, I don't believe anyone has a right to come here. No more than some transient has a right to come into my house to spend the night without my permission.
thank God people are finally starting to get it. Here is an article about that same guest speaker at the DNC convention. No one in their right minds would have picked this guy...
http://www.newsweek.com/tragedy-john-allen-petraeus-scandal-62869
War is a two party system manifestation against free trade, unless it is those pork laden defense budget transactions with military complex contractors and such.
Hillary wins the election because Trump wants her too, but only after Trump creates a phenomena of political revolt not seen since early last century.......building the blocks for future decay of the two party system.
Trump is savy, nooooooo doubt.
War is a two party system manifestation against free trade, unless it is those pork laden defense budget transactions with military complex contractors and such.
Hillary wins the election because Trump wants her too, but only after Trump creates a phenomena of political revolt not seen since early last century.......building the blocks for future decay of the two party system.
Trump is savy, nooooooo doubt.
Awful, yet not surprising.
Sure, it's important to have a strong defense, but they could have that now if they would stop donating the funds to enemies & the UN.
I do like Darrell Castle's overall foreign plan. He is a lot like Ron Paul in many ways. (or visa versa?). They've fought many of the same battles together, like End the Feds. For those interested: https://www.constitutionparty.com/foreign-policy1/
Just one question: Since when has the Pentagon ever had to "pinch pennies"?
I'll add one more observation, when Republicans play the war card, they're hailed as patriots, freedom fighters, who love the troops more than...... what, their long, long vacation breaks?
"ure, it's important to have a strong defense, but they could have that now if they would stop donating the funds to enemies & the UN."
And we do such pszoid things. If anything, we should have been supportive of Syria and its President Assad. Instead we play against both sides when his enemies are the ones we're bombing now, but we still consider Assad the bad guy. Makes no sense.
I echo your words, No sense at all.
When the rules of the game demand aiding the enemies if you aide the allies, it's time to put a stop to the game altogether, like Darrell Castle & Ron Paul both demand for.
Assad was and is a brutal dictator and citizens, tired of his behavior and refusal to enact reforms, revolted against him.
I don't understand why you think we should have supported him. That seems to be like wishing the French would have supported King George when the American colonies revolted.
---
BTW, best I remember the US did not get involved in Syria until after Assad started slaughtering his citizens. And most of our involvement has been directed toward the ISIS groups that moved into the conflict.
"I don't understand why you think we should have supported him."
IF nothing else, we shouldn't have gave moral support to his enemies. We could have just stayed out of it and let Assad deal with ISIS and the rest.
We msy criticize Assad for being brutal and a dictator, but I'll go out on a limb and suggest the same I suggested about Iraq, although my case in Iraq went out the window with Hussein's death: I'm suggesting that with the absence of their dictators, and the presence and influence of the west, Iraqis and Syrians will end up less free than they were before we got involved.
I think what you are saying is that when innocent people outside US borders are being slaughtered you feel the US should sit back and watch it happen.
That is not the sort of country I want the US to be.
"I think what you are saying is that when innocent people outside US borders are being slaughtered you feel the US should sit back and watch it happen."
You seem to believe every accusation made against foreign leaders. consider those accusations suspsct.
I can't help but wonder if most of these accusations were made by someone with an axe to grind that wants the U>S. to take care of their dirty work. Chalabi, the guy who told a lot of the stories of Iraqi WMD, turned out to be a guy who expected to take power when Hussein was gone. I wonder if he wasn't playing us.
Governor Gary Johnson supports "humane" wars, as you think exist. Back in 2012, he specificially pointed to that African guy Kohne, or whatever his name was, that was supposedly cutting off children's ears and noses. He felt it would be totally appropriate to use U.S. military power to get Kohne. I can't help but wonder if the person making those accusations was doing the same sort of thing but just wanted Kohne out of the way, hoping the U.S. would do his dirty work for him.
There's no doubt in my mind at least some accusations against Assad were false. Him "using chemicals against his own people" for example, I think was a fabrication to fan the flames of war.
Why? As I wrote back then, with the west looking for an excuse to attack him, he'd be a fool to provoke things with chemical weapons use. He'd have nothing to gain and everything to lose. The same can't be said of the rebels who'd have everything to gain and nothing to lose by faking a chemical attack. And, yes, as we've seen since then, the rebels did have access to sarin and other chemical weapons. It would have been in their best interest to fake an attack and get the west to enter the fray and fight their battle for them.
Why don't you read up on Assad's use of sarin gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
Even if you choose to believe Russia over the United Nations there are many more well documented accounts of Assad's forces using artillery and barrel bombs against citizens.
But let's come back to the main point, that you seem to want the United States to stand by and watch innocents be slaughtered. Is that or is that not an accurate summary of your position?
I'm not sure I trust those who claim the slaughter is taking place. My feelings about use of gas amount to common sense as I see it.
Since you're engaging in evasive action rather than answering a very clear question, I'll take it that you don't think the US should intervene when innocents are being slaughtered.
If that is truly how you feed then I can see why you might think Hillary Clinton is a warmonger.
I believe that we have a moral obligation to aid those in trouble. Since what Clinton has done is to advocate for the US to come to the aid of people being slaughtered I don't agree with that labeling of her.
I take that to mean you'll accept any excuse to attack another country. I'm not sure hoe to reconcile our conflict here. You seem to think people are being slaughtered all over the place. I'm not so sure they are and, if they are, it probably comes from both sides.
More news from Hillary's Libya debacle. We're bombing Libya again. I'm sure you can come up with a humane argument for this:
http://tinyurl.com/jqhsypv
"I take that to mean you'll accept any excuse to attack another country."
That's some first class creative reading on your part, Fred. Just to make sure you understand, I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took the US into a war for unjustifiable reasons.
Now, I suspect we've pretty much finished up this discussion. I wanted to understand your thinking and feels like I've got a handle on it now.
I like Darrell Castle's stance.
https://www.constitutionparty.com/foreign-policy1/
Post a Comment
<< Home