War drum being beat louder than ever

[tytlyf]

I still don't understand this "what if" stuff your talking about.

And, why do we need to destroy Syria's air power?

Come on...

Republicans called Hillary a hawk because she supported a "No-Fly Zone" in Syria. The republican justification was that "if Russians fly in the air, that will lead to shooting them down." That's the 'what if' scenario. My point is that supporting a no-fly zone is NOT a hawkish comment.

No one knows if the allies would attack aircraft breaking the rules. But that's automatically assumed by the 'what if' crowd.

 

[averageJOE]

Come on...

Republicans called Hillary a hawk because she supported a "No-Fly Zone" in Syria. The republican justification was that "if Russians fly in the air, that will lead to shooting them down." That's the 'what if' scenario. My point is that supporting a no-fly zone is NOT a hawkish comment.

No one knows if the allies would attack aircraft breaking the rules. But that's automatically assumed by the 'what if' crowd.

????
IF Russians fly in Syrian airspace???

Syrian airspace is routinely flown through by Russian aircraft. There is no "If the Russians fly in the air". The appropriate response would be "If Russia honors the US Syrian no-fly zone".

 

[Underhill]

What makes you so firmly believe that they're lobbying for the country to go to war?
What I observed was effort to get contracts. This is necessary because the process
is so political. I gave the examples of the A9 vs A10, & F18 primary contractor status.
What specific examples to the contrary do you have?
In what area of the defense industry are you so experienced that you have such certainty?

They have to justify these programs and the boogy man mentality is how they do it.

He's your example, so you might to the homework of looking him up,
& showing how he influenced the country towards war.
"Russia is a looming threat" is one of those "duh" claims, ie, a great
many of us see it as obvious. So it doesn't prove your point at all.

So you think they just make this stuff up? Of course it's not completely bs or nobody would take them seriously. But a person who makes money from spending on war should not be advocating for escalation on the national news. It is a concrete example of exactly what we are talking about.

So you're now defending playing policeman to the world, military adventurism, & peremptory attacks?
It would seem you are the one who buys into the alleged propaganda which sends us to war.
I reject it.

What are you taking about? I did no such thing.

By my values, yes.
Even lefties agree that she is.
Elizabeth Warren is a super hawk on Israel

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/28/1543484/-Elizabeth-Warren-is-a-super-hawk-on-Israel

As is the entirety of Washington. On Israel. I disagree with them as well. But by that measure they all come up short.

But lets examine your link. First, your article is basically a blog post from someone called charliehall2.

I would also point out that his logic is a bit absurd. Their reasoning is that she supported the deal with Iran so therefor is in Israels pocket. I support the deal with Iran. I am certainly not a hawk on Israel. They also argue that she defended Israels actions against Palestine. Again, without details this is hard to fault. Some of the actions Israel takes I support, many I do not.

But a glorified blog post isn't much proof of anything.

When did he vote against it?

Good point. But he was against it.

Obama Speech - 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War - Complete Text

At this point, he is only 100 (or so) days in office.
So we don't really yet know what danger he poses.
But I don't defend his foreign policy actions.

In 100 days he has everyone in Washington terrified. But sure, it's early yet. Every intelligence expert out there could be wrong and he could actually be playing some game beyond all human comprehension.

 

[Revoltingest]

They have to justify these programs and the boogy man mentality is how they do it.
So you think they just make this stuff up?

Yes.
The utter lack of evidence & cogent argument means that it's imagined.

Of course it's not completely bs or nobody would take them seriously. But a person who makes money from spending on war should not be advocating for escalation on the national news.

I don't see this example as even remotely convincing evidence of the claimed conspiracy.

It is a concrete example of exactly what we are talking about.

It's far from concrete evidence, that one individual would offer such a public opinion.

What are you taking about? I did no such thing.

You spoke of the need for Obama to continue the wars.

Good point. But he was against it.
Obama Speech - 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War - Complete Text

He was against the war which he continued once in power.
Some might call it "evolution"....some "dishonesty".
I don't know his motives....only that he pursued the wars when he had the power not to.

In 100 days he has everyone in Washington terrified. But sure, it's early yet. Every intelligence expert out there could be wrong and he could actually be playing some game beyond all human comprehension.

You speak for every intelligence expert....what are they all saying?

 

[Underhill]

Yes.
The utter lack of evidence & cogent argument means that it's imagined.

I don't see this example as even remotely convincing evidence of the claimed conspiracy.

It's far from concrete evidence, that one individual would offer such a public opinion.

You spoke of the need for Obama to continue the wars.

He was against the war which he continued once in power.
Some might call it "evolution"....some "dishonesty".
I don't know his motives....only that he pursued the wars when he had the power not to.

You speak for every intelligence expert....what are they all saying?

I'm saying I've talked to people that say the mood in Washington among those in the industry is of fear and anger. It is well known the president doesn't take them seriously. There are reports of having to dumb down intelligence briefings. It is some scary stuff.

As for the rest, you are one baffling individual. You are anti war but do not seem to think one of the drivers of war is our military spending. I've never met your like.

It's simple. We spend massively on 'defense'. Vastly more than anyone else. The justification of this spending boils down to, 'ooh look at China, look at Russia, look at North Korea and look at the terrorist'. And yet, you believe this has no impact on our national policies. It is a strange world you live in. War is bad, war spending is good. Warren is a hawk, based on a glorified blog post, you can't support while Trump, who has talked about war with China, North Korea and Russia in the last hundred days, we have to wait and see.

Strange...

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm saying I've talked to people that say the mood in Washington among those in the industry is of fear and anger. It is well known the president doesn't take them seriously. There are reports of having to dumb down intelligence briefings. It is some scary stuff.

I'm not moved by vague claims using the passive voice.

As for the rest, you are one baffling individual. You are anti war but do not seem to think one of the drivers of war is our military spending. I've never met your like.

While you blame the spending itself, I blame those who wield the power.
I also blame voters who re-elect leaders who pursue needless wars.

I believe in a strong defense...one used only in defense.
Looking at our record in military foreign adventurism, I don't see benefits justifying the cost.
Thus, we should avoid it.
Is that so baffling?

It's simple. We spend massively on 'defense'. Vastly more than anyone else. The justification of this spending boils down to, 'ooh look at China, look at Russia, look at North Korea and look at the terrorist'. And yet, you believe this has no impact on our national policies.

Again, spending itself does not cause foreign military misadventures.
Examining how what is called "defense spending" is allocated, I see too much emphasis on conquest,
& too little on actual defense of the country. This is a decision by leaders, not the result of purse size.

It is a strange world you live in.

I'm a Libertarian, an atheist, a non-aggressionist, a draft dodger, & a weapon system designer.
There aren't many of us.

War is bad, war spending is good.

Then you misunderstand.
War is useful at times (eg, WW2), but is best avoided.
Spending itself is not the goal....but it will happen when securing the country.

Warren is a hawk, based on a glorified blog post, you can't support while Trump, who has talked about war with China, North Korea and Russia in the last hundred days, we have to wait and see.
Strange...

I've never claimed that Trump shares my non-aggressionist views.
Only that I judged him to be a lower risk than The Hildabeast.
Reasonable people can disagree about which is worse.
Unreasonable people see only that one is saint, & the other Satan.

I've said the above many times, but it never seems to stick.

 

[Underhill]

I'm not moved by vague claims using the passive voice.

I don't care if you are moved. But you can see it in interviews out there too. There are a lot of nervous people out there.

While you blame the spending itself, I blame those who wield the power.
I also blame voters who re-elect leaders who pursue needless wars.

I believe in a strong defense...one used only in defense.
Looking at our record in military foreign adventurism, I don't see benefits justifying the cost.
Thus, we should avoid it.
Is that so baffling?

Yes, because our spending is clearly not defense minded. Forward operating carrier groups for defense?

Again, spending itself does not cause foreign military misadventures.
Examining how what is called "defense spending" is allocated, I see too much emphasis on conquest,
& too little on actual defense of the country. This is a decision by leaders, not the result of purse size.

Of course it does. To justify the spending the contractors talk up the threat to politicians. Who then have to talk up the threats to their constituents. Who then start questioning why we aren't doing enough. It is all part of the cycle. But at least then you have the buffer of politicians who are supposed to be knowledgable. By contractors going directly to the people they are ramping up the rhetoric and, in affect, pushing politicians from the other side.

I'm a Libertarian, an atheist, a non-aggressionist, a draft dodger, & a weapon system designer.
There aren't many of us.

I can see why.

Then you misunderstand.
War is useful at times (eg, WW2), but is best avoided.
Spending itself is not the goal....but it will happen when securing the country.

I am all for spending to protect the country. But our spending levels go way beyond defense.

I've never claimed that Trump shares my non-aggressionist views.
Only that I judged him to be a lower risk than The Hildabeast.
Reasonable people can disagree about which is worse.
Unreasonable people see only that one is saint, & the other Satan.

I've said the above many times, but it never seems to stick.

Because it is so damned unbelievable a statement. I get she isn't a saint. But to believe Trump is better... it is baffling.

 

[metis]

Because it is so damned unbelievable a statement. I get she isn't a saint. But to believe Trump is better... it is baffling.

Amen to that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, because our spending is clearly not defense minded.

That's exactly what I've been droning on & on about.

Of course it does.

We'll have to agree to disagree whether tis money or leaders who cause needless wars.

I can see why.

We're an elite group.

I am all for spending to protect the country. But our spending levels go way beyond defense.

Now you're starting to sound like me.
Does that worry you?

Because it is so damned unbelievable a statement. I get she isn't a saint. But to believe Trump is better... it is baffling.

Dedicated partisans have a hard time seeing the other side as having any merit.

 

[esmith]

Was reading in the local paper an interesting article. It presented the possibility that North Korea will use their nuclear arsenal at some time in the future to take over South Korea as they wanted to in 1950. With nuclear weapons backing them up they could think they could insure that no country would oppose them with their nuclear threat.

 

[Underhill]

Dedicated partisans have a hard time seeing the other side as having any merit.

If I see one I will let you know. I am no devotee. But Trump, seriously? The same moron who couldn't believe just how difficult revamping health care was going to be? The same blithering idiot who talks about foreign policy like a used car salesman?

 

[Underhill]

Was reading in the local paper an interesting article. It presented the possibility that North Korea will use their nuclear arsenal at some time in the future to take over South Korea as they wanted to in 1950. With nuclear weapons backing them up they could think they could insure that no country would oppose them with their nuclear threat.

They have a point. Turning the North into a glass parking lot would probably have negative repercussions (struggling not to use the term 'fallout') for the South and China.

On the other hand, the South isn't exactly powerless. We've been arming them for decades for just such a scenario.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I see one I will let you know. I am no devotee. But Trump, seriously? The same moron who couldn't believe just how difficult revamping health care was going to be? The same blithering idiot who talks about foreign policy like a used car salesman?

He had tough competition for the race to the bottom of the barrel.

 

[esmith]

They have a point. Turning the North into a glass parking lot would probably have negative repercussions (struggling not to use the term 'fallout') for the South and China.

On the other hand, the South isn't exactly powerless. We've been arming them for decades for just such a scenario.

Well look at it this way.
North Korea has the largest army in the world 1,300,000
The US has the second largest if one combines the USMC and USA 1,235,900
South Korea has the 8th largest 495,00
North Korea Has The Largest Military In The World | Military
World's Largest Armies

 

[Underhill]

He had tough competition for the race to the bottom of the barrel.

I'm just waiting for that moment when you realize how badly you, and the rest of the people who voted for him, screwed up. I have no doubt it's coming.

I don't know if you'd fess up to it here on the forums. I imagine it will be a tough pill to swallow.

I did it with George Bush about 2 years into his term. It wasn't easy. How much better off the world would have been under Gore I don't know. But there is little doubt in my mind that it would have been an improvement.

 

[Underhill]

Well look at it this way.
North Korea has the largest army in the world 1,300,000
The US has the second largest if one combines the USMC and USA 1,235,900
South Korea has the 8th largest 495,00
North Korea Has The Largest Military In The World | Military
World's Largest Armies

Right, but with air superiority do those numbers matter so much? And there is little doubt South Korea will be able to maintain that superiority against the Norths outdated air farce.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess people who do not want to live in peace will eventually succeed at failing to.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm just waiting for that moment when you realize how badly you, and the rest of the people who voted for him, screwed up. I have no doubt it's coming.

To have no doubts about things to difficult to predict is a sign of faith based rationalizing.
Trump could indeed turn out terrible (as I warned you before the election).
But so could have the alternative, ie, Hilda.

I don't know if you'd fess up to it here on the forums. I imagine it will be a tough pill to swallow.

Only now you admit to some uncertainty about something?
If Trump ends up being OK as Prez, would you admit that
your vote for the Hildabeast was wrong?

I did it with George Bush about 2 years into his term. It wasn't easy. How much better off the world would have been under Gore I don't know. But there is little doubt in my mind that it would have been an improvement.

I strongly recommend cultivating more doubt about the unknowable.

 

[tytlyf]

????
IF Russians fly in Syrian airspace???

Syrian airspace is routinely flown through by Russian aircraft. There is no "If the Russians fly in the air". The appropriate response would be "If Russia honors the US Syrian no-fly zone".

Correct. Conservatives/republicans assumed Clinton's comment was hawkish due to a 'what if' scenario. How many times do I have to repeat this? How does anyone know what Russia will do regarding the no-fly zone if enacted?

It's not a hawkish statement. (but that didn't stop the establishment from making it their #1 hawkish comment as to not vote for her). It's all about deception with the corporate republican party.

I was listening to Rush earlier trying to sell reasons as to why pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered. Pre-existing conditions are the main/only thing this whole Obamacare debacle is about. The greedy insurance companies who lobby republicans don't want to cover pre-existing conditions because it's expensive and will hurt profits.

GOP = Greed Over People

It's really that simple.

 

[esmith]

Right, but with air superiority do those numbers matter so much? And there is little doubt South Korea will be able to maintain that superiority against the Norths outdated air farce.

Air superiority at the onset of the Korean war didn't make that much difference. Not until latter into the war that it made a difference