War with Iran

[3RA1N1AC]

The gas was analyzed by a group like Doctors Without Borders from soil samples and they found it was manufactured using techniques used by the Germans and Russians.

not that i believe this but...

we chose to militarily back the same side as russia? during the cold war?

 

[Denny Crane]

not that i believe this but...

we chose to militarily back the same side as russia? during the cold war?

Neither Iraq nor Iran were our allies. It was better for us back then to basically watch them fight each other. As your own posted material points out, we did Iran-Contra and provided intel to Iraq.

 

[ABM]

I have told you several times I do not support US military involvement in other countries, the killing of people in those countries, or the empire building and corporate profiteering these crimes are committed for.

One of my counterparts just sold windows to the author of this book. Ever heard of him?

http://www.mediasanctuary.org/node/3146

 

[MARIS61]

Yeah.

He's one of the Beach Boys.

 

[huevonkiller]

It is called non-interventionism, not "isolationism".

This is the difference between Switzerland and North Korea, so please educate yourselves and use the right word.

Also the US constitution is based on preventing something known as "Tyranny of the Majority". So it doesn't matter if 90% of the country wants to break the constitution and go to war illegally.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Help educate me, HK. What is one hypothetical, practical example of being non-interventionist, but also non-isolationist?

My guess is that any military action you propose I can claim intervenes somewhere. But maybe your particular brand of education has another connotation to it?

For the record, Switzerland is neutral, not non-interventionist. They've sent armed troops to Kosovo, and conduct military exercises to other countries. Try again, please.

 

[huevonkiller]

Switzerland is indeed neutral, and also known as non-interventionist. You have some reading comprehension problems.

Take for example 19th Century China vs Switzerland, what do you think the difference is? One nation is "isolationist", and the other is a sophisticated non-interventionist state.

Help educate me, HK. What is one hypothetical, practical example of being non-interventionist, but also non-isolationist?

My guess is that any military action you propose I can claim intervenes somewhere. But maybe your particular brand of education has another connotation to it?

For the record, Switzerland is neutral, not non-interventionist. They've sent armed troops to Kosovo, and conduct military exercises to other countries. Try again, please.

Relax dude you're not that slick. Gary Johnson is a Libertarian with a slightly interventionist foreign policy, I still refer to him as Libertarian and non-interventionist.

Stop bitching about Switzerland you know what their overall foreign policy is, not all countries or candidates are perfect.

 

[Denny Crane]

Help educate me, HK. What is one hypothetical, practical example of being non-interventionist, but also non-isolationist?

My guess is that any military action you propose I can claim intervenes somewhere. But maybe your particular brand of education has another connotation to it?

For the record, Switzerland is neutral, not non-interventionist. They've sent armed troops to Kosovo, and conduct military exercises to other countries. Try again, please.

Non-intervention means you don't go to war with a country over its own internal affairs. The purpose of the military is to protect us when some foreign country invades our land. Or protect our merchant vessels from pirates.

You can refuse to intervene but still carry on trade, welcome foreigners who travel here, etc. to refuse to do even trade is isolationist. Buy America only!

You can intervene via trade policies as well. We'll embargo country X's goods until they satisfy our human rights demands.

Non-intervention means non-intervention.

 

[Ed O]

Also there's something called "Tyranny of the Majority" in the Constitution, so it doesn't matter if 90% of the country wants to break the constitution and go to war illegally.

There is? Where is that phrase in the US Constitution?

Ed O.

 

[huevonkiller]

There is? Where is that phrase in the US Constitution?

Ed O.

Edit: Oh please that was just a typo. That specific quote isn't in the constitution but similar phrases are used instead, Mr. Lawyer.


Nice try, bruh.

 

[Ed O]

In the Constitution it is called "the violence of majority faction", which is exactly the same thing.

Nice try. I used tyranny of the majority because it sounds cooler, bruh.

Where is "the violence of majority faction" in the US Constitution?

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

The Federalist papers are not the same as the US Constitution.

Bruh.

Ed O.

 

[huevonkiller]

Where is "the violence of majority faction" in the US Constitution?

Ed O.

At least I know what trashy and slutty mean, genius. Stop throwing stones because you're not qualified, dude.

You know what I meant.

 

[huevonkiller]

The Federalist papers are not the same as the US Constitution.

Bruh.

Ed O.

The concept is all over our Consititution, brah, read it.

At least I know what a synonym is. Bruh.

Read a dictionary.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Switzerland is indeed neutral, and also known as non-interventionist. You have some reading comprehension problems.

bullshit with the personal attacks, bruh. I just showed you that the Swiss have armed troops on the ground in Kosovo. That's, by definition, "intervening."

Take for example 19th Century China vs Switzerland, what do you think the difference is? One nation is "isolationist", and the other is a sophisticated non-interventionist state.

Let's not. Let's take USA, 1914 or even 1940. Both were trading all over the world, yet had an "Isolationist" military policy.

Gary Johnson is a Libertarian with a slightly interventionist foreign policy, I still refer to him as Libertarian and non-interventionist.

So you're the one with comprehension problems? And what the hell is "slightly interventionist?" The milquetoast way of saying "I want to appease the peaceniks, but I know that that's ivory-tower utopian horseshit?"

Stop bitching about Switzerland you know what their overall foreign policy is, not all countries or candidates are perfect.

I know much better than you about Switzerland's foreign policy. They think they're doing just fine. Just because they don't meet your floating definitions in order to help you win a losing debate doesn't mean I like or dislike how they do it.

 

[huevonkiller]

Non-intervention means you don't go to war with a country over its own internal affairs. The purpose of the military is to protect us when some foreign country invades our land. Or protect our merchant vessels from pirates.

You can refuse to intervene but still carry on trade, welcome foreigners who travel here, etc. to refuse to do even trade is isolationist. Buy America only!

You can intervene via trade policies as well. We'll embargo country X's goods until they satisfy our human rights demands.

Non-intervention means non-intervention.

Yeah thanks Den, I didn't think I had to spell it out for him.

:]

 

[huevonkiller]

bullshit with the personal attacks, bruh. I just showed you that the Swiss have armed troops on the ground in Kosovo. That's, by definition, "intervening."

And by definition they are not "neutral" then. Lol why don't you stop using that term then?

Hypocrite.

Let's not. Let's take USA, 1914 or even 1940. Both were trading all over the world, yet had an "Isolationist" military policy.

Well Denny proved you are uneducated then. It means a pro-free-trade policy.

So you're the one with comprehension problems? And what the hell is "slightly interventionist?" The milquetoast way of saying "I want to appease the peaceniks, but I know that that's ivory-tower utopian horseshit?"

It means you're not fucking slick, since people know that Gary Johnson and Switzerland are "neutral".

I know much better than you about Switzerland's foreign policy. They think they're doing just fine. Just because they don't meet your floating definitions in order to help you win a losing debate doesn't mean I like or dislike how they do it.

Apparently you don't recall your own floating definitions.

I love Switzerland's foreign policy, I'm glad we agree on that. They are known as non-interventionist despite all the whining you do.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Here, I'll help you out a bit, bruh...you're kind of out of your element. Look up things like the 1935 Neutrality Acts, Senator Nye (who might've been Maris' grandfather, for all their views on the "Merchants of Death" spiel). Roosevelt's Chautauqua speech:

We are not isolationists except in so far as we seek to isolate ourselves completely from war. Yet we must remember that so long as war exists on earth there will be some danger that even the Nation which most ardently desires peace may be drawn into war.

, followed by the 1941 State of the Union:

We are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.

I mean, who the hell is FDR when you get to make the definition for Gary Johnson, right, bruh?

 

[huevonkiller]

Let's recap your bitchy post:

1. Switzerland is not "non-interventionist", but they are "neutral" and "isolationist".

LOL ok dude.

2. Gary Johnson is not known as a non-interventionist, but he's an isolationist? And Isolationist is a synonym of non-interventionist? What the fuck are you rambling about now?

 

[huevonkiller]

Here, I'll help you out a bit, bruh...you're kind of out of your element. Look up things like the 1935 Neutrality Acts, Senator Nye (who might've been Maris' grandfather, for all their views on the "Merchants of Death" spiel). Roosevelt's Chautauqua speech:
, followed by the 1941 State of the Union:

I mean, who the hell is FDR when you get to make the definition for Gary Johnson, right, bruh?

What does this prove?

Face it dude, you're pouting and have already contradicted yourself.

Denny's post was pretty damn clear.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Let's recap your bitchy post:

1. Switzerland is not "non-interventionist", but they are "neutral" and "isolationist".

All I said was that they have a strict neutrality policy, and armed troops on the ground in Kosovo. Whatever you want to call that, those are the "facts."

2. Gary Johnson is not known as a non-interventionist, but he's an isolationist? And Isolationist is a synonym of non-interventionist? What the fuck are you rambling about now?

I don't have the first clue who Gary Johnson is or why I should care. I haven't brought his name up other than to say you seem to be making definitions for him. You and Denny seem to have a non-historical view of isolationism/non-intervention...which kinda sucks in a discussion, b/c you're not playing by the definitions that the rest of the world does.

Non-intervention means you don't go to war with a country over its own internal affairs. The purpose of the military is to protect us when some foreign country invades our land. Or protect our merchant vessels from pirates.
You can refuse to intervene but still carry on trade, welcome foreigners who travel here, etc. to refuse to do even trade is isolationist. Buy America only!
You can intervene via trade policies as well. We'll embargo country X's goods until they satisfy our human rights demands.
Non-intervention means non-intervention.

You brought up Switzerland, bruh, and I showed you how they have troops on the ground in Kosovo, violating Paragraph One of Denny's definition.
I brought up Roosevelt, b/c his was the last administration that attempted to follow this isolationist/non-interventionist policy you seem to be advocating. And I showed how even he came to the realization (almost a year before Pearl Harbor) that it was stupid and immoral.

 

[BrianFromWA]

What does this prove?

Did you look them up? Do you have any idea what those are? Damn, bruh...I can give it to you, but I can't make you read.

Face it dude, you're pouting and have already contradicted yourself.

Denny's post was pretty damn clear.

I commend you on your ability to not pay attention and sling personal attacks in order to think you're correct. At some point (maybe with age? Or doing more than writing papers on world affairs) perhaps you'll see that being wrong is ok, sometimes.

 

[BrianFromWA]

this conversation is reminding me of the Harvard kid in Good Will Hunting. You spout off some phrase you heard in class, Ed shows you you're wrong, you tell him to shut the fuck up.

You spout off something you heard about the Swiss, and don't realize that others who've worked with the Swiss military know a bit better than you do what's going on. Then you say "you're not that fucking slick" a few times.

Then you seem to applaud Denny's definitions, while not knowing what FDR's policy changes leading to war in the 30's were, the historical precedents for them, or why they changed ("Morality" being one of them). And then when you were given the material to make yourself a bit smarter about it, you ignored it to say "what does that prove?"

Am I going to be selling your kids fries on the way to your ski trip, bruh?

 

[Denny Crane]

Brian,

How many wars were there in Europe before Woodrow Wilson? Or before Teddy Roosevelt? How did they manage without our blood and treasure!

And for the record, I've posted relevant sections of the Constitution that specify that Treaties we enter into are the supreme law of the land. NATO is a treaty obligation, but it's also a scam because we basically are NATO. The UN is a treaty obligation as well, but we and the two nations we conquered in WW II make up over 40% of the funding for it. I'd be fine with sending < 1,000 troops on peacekeeping missions due to our treaty obligations. It's a different thing than providing 2.5M armed forces and bullying the members into doing what we want to do (Kosovo).

I differ with your view of Roosevelt. He was desperate for a way out of the economic malaise brought on by Keynes, saw the Fascists had gotten out of their Great Depression much sooner (wanted to emulate that), and baited the Japanese into attacking so he could take us to War.

 

[huevonkiller]

All I said was that they have a strict neutrality policy, and armed troops on the ground in Kosovo. Whatever you want to call that, those are the "facts."

Face it dude, you contradicted yourself.

Either Switzerland is neutral or they aren't neutral. You can't whine like that and expect me to let you off the hook. In your rush to whine about the way I described Switzerland, you made yourself look like a fucking hypocrite. I love it.

I don't have the first clue who Gary Johnson is or why I should care.

I love it that you don't know who he is, that is funny to me.

Gary Johnson is known as a "non-interventionist" even if he wants to intervene in some small skirmishes. I use a pragmatic definition of "non-interventionist", just like you do with "neutral".

I haven't brought his name up other than to say you seem to be making definitions for him. You and Denny seem to have a non-historical view of isolationism/non-intervention...which kinda sucks in a discussion, b/c you're not playing by the definitions that the rest of the world does.

And Libertarian used to mean Socialist. And Liberal means Socialist now. Your little history lesson means jack to us.

Denny made it crystal clear that isolationist implies protectionism. And the way you define "isolationist" is like heaven to us anyway.

You brought up Switzerland, bruh, and I showed you how they have troops on the ground in Kosovo, violating Paragraph One of Denny's definition.

Nah nigguh I don't think so.


"For the record, Switzerland is neutral, not non-interventionist. They've sent armed troops to Kosovo, and conduct military exercises to other countries."

Try again, son. Not only does this make zero sense, it shows why you have no credibility.

I brought up Roosevelt, b/c his was the last administration that attempted to follow this isolationist/non-interventionist policy you seem to be advocating. And I showed how even he came to the realization (almost a year before Pearl Harbor) that it was stupid and immoral.

You are crazy dude, we believe in self defense. Lol.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Brian,

How many wars were there in Europe before Woodrow Wilson? Or before Teddy Roosevelt? How did they manage without our blood and treasure!

I'm not sure where you're going with this. After the wars of German unification there was about 50 years of "peace" in Europe prior to WWI. But we'd been "intervening" in Latin America ever since the Monroe Doctrine.

And for the record, I've posted relevant sections of the Constitution that specify that Treaties we enter into are the supreme law of the land. NATO is a treaty obligation, but it's also a scam because we basically are NATO. The UN is a treaty obligation as well, but we and the two nations we conquered in WW II make up over 40% of the funding for it. I'd be fine with sending < 1,000 troops on peacekeeping missions due to our treaty obligations. It's a different thing than providing 2.5M armed forces and bullying the members into doing what we want to do (Kosovo).

There's validity here, but let me ask this from a military perspective. If you send over 1000 troops on a peacekeeping mission that, in all likelihood, needed 5000 or 10000 or 20000, and those troops were either a) killed or b) placed under the command of a foreign leader b/c he brought 1100 troops to the table, are you ok with those outcomes? Do you not honor your obligations, then? B/c that's a very large factor in how we deploy. Look at Libya (Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR)...we helped with ships and missiles and planes, but we didn't set foot in Libya, we didn't have any of our planes go over Libya Territory, and we didn't place any of our troops under Canadian General Bouchard's command. Look up the restrictions we put on the Marines in Beirut in the early 80's, and the firestorm that came down b/c it looked like we didn't have enough Marines with enough security to do "peacekeeping" operations as "neutral" observers.

I differ with your view of Roosevelt. He was desperate for a way out of the economic malaise brought on by Keynes, saw the Fascists had gotten out of their Great Depression much sooner (wanted to emulate that),

and baited the Japanese into attacking so he could take us to War.

There's potential that you're right here, but you can see from the State of the Union address in 1941 that policy had already changed. And with Lend-Lease (both to the Brits and the Russians) and the "Arsenal of Democracy" (all before the Japanese attacked), the economic malaise was already being addressed through military production. Why did we have to send troops, then, if it wasn't a "moral" decision?

 

[huevonkiller]

Did you look them up? Do you have any idea what those are? Damn, bruh...I can give it to you, but I can't make you read.
I commend you on your ability to not pay attention and sling personal attacks in order to think you're correct. At some point (maybe with age? Or doing more than writing papers on world affairs) perhaps you'll see that being wrong is ok, sometimes.

I'm sorry to inform you but Stalin killed about 50 million people, you can stop talking about how great we were in World War 2.

 

[huevonkiller]

this conversation is reminding me of the Harvard kid in Good Will Hunting. You spout off some phrase you heard in class, Ed shows you you're wrong, you tell him to shut the fuck up.

Hmm I don't think so, Ed O's syntax was poor in our last discussion. So I thought it was funny that this time he was all high and mighty.

You spout off something you heard about the Swiss, and don't realize that others who've worked with the Swiss military know a bit better than you do what's going on. Then you say "you're not that fucking slick" a few times.

Then you seem to applaud Denny's definitions, while not knowing what FDR's policy changes leading to war in the 30's were, the historical precedents for them, or why they changed ("Morality" being one of them). And then when you were given the material to make yourself a bit smarter about it, you ignored it to say "what does that prove?"

Am I going to be selling your kids fries on the way to your ski trip, bruh?

But the difference is, Matt Damon understands what a thesaurus is.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Guh. This'll be my last one, because I can't hang with stoned college kids spouting off stuff they think they heard a professor say once. I'll use words maybe you can understand.

1) You brought up Switzerland. They have a strict non-neutrality policy. The have armed fucking troops on the fucking ground in fucking Kosovo, which is another fucking country from fucking Switzerland. Therefore, armed fucking Swiss troops are intervening in a situation in Kosovo to stop people from killing each other. Therefore, they are a) neutral and b) intervening with armed troops in another fucking country's problems. I can't state it any clearer than that. There's no fucking self-defense....no fucking "trade sanctions" or anything.

2) While I respect Denny's view, your insistence with him that "isolationism" = "protectionism" hasn't been valid for at least 70 years. Sorry about that. Gotta find a new word.

3) I just read Gary's blog about reduction in defense spending. While I'm all for smart ways of doing so, his plans have zero basis in analysis . Here are more from his website:

AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND, now, Libya should end, our troops returned home, and the focus of our foreign policy reoriented toward the protection of U.S. citizens and interests.

With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people.
Saddam Hussein has been out of power in Iraq for nearly eight years. America must leave so Iraq can have a chance to grow into a responsible member of the world community.
Without a clear goal for our military actions in Libya, fighting rages on, and the American people are footing the bill.
Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.
The U.S. must make better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests.

It seems (aside from not being updated in at least 5 months) that Gary wants to re-evaluate European (but not Japanese or Korean?) deployments, make use of alliances, and still "protect national interests." If someone is threatening our "national interests", is it "intervention" to take action to protect them?

 

[huevonkiller]

Brian,

How many wars were there in Europe before Woodrow Wilson? Or before Teddy Roosevelt? How did they manage without our blood and treasure!

And for the record, I've posted relevant sections of the Constitution that specify that Treaties we enter into are the supreme law of the land. NATO is a treaty obligation, but it's also a scam because we basically are NATO. The UN is a treaty obligation as well, but we and the two nations we conquered in WW II make up over 40% of the funding for it. I'd be fine with sending < 1,000 troops on peacekeeping missions due to our treaty obligations. It's a different thing than providing 2.5M armed forces and bullying the members into doing what we want to do (Kosovo).

I differ with your view of Roosevelt. He was desperate for a way out of the economic malaise brought on by Keynes, saw the Fascists had gotten out of their Great Depression much sooner (wanted to emulate that), and baited the Japanese into attacking so he could take us to War.

I'm fine with the idea of peacekeeping missions, but not public sector peacekeeping missions.

Also your world war 2 claims are fascinating but I am skeptical about conspiracy theories. I think we were simply attacked by a bad nation.