1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New rule: No starting any new wars until you've finished fighting all your current ones.

Discussion in 'The Political World' started by Kangaroo Feathers, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. Enoch07

    Enoch07 It's all a sick freaking joke.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,148
    Ratings:
    +2,300
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist-Christian
    I'm no fan of war either. But if Iran keeps sinking ships, funding terrorist groups, and attacking our allies. They will force our hand.
     
  2. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    8,340
    Ratings:
    +5,849
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Prove Iran attacked anyone, and let's talk. Further, the Japanese are big boys. If they feel military action is warranted over this, I'm sure they're capable of asking for help, if not deploying their own self defence forces.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    8,340
    Ratings:
    +5,849
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Well... that's kind of arguable and highly reductionist. The group we know as ISIS dates from 1999, before Iraq was even invaded, let alone before the war there "ended" (another highly debatable idea). Their rise to prominence was due to several factors, too. As with most of this stuff, it's all a lot more complicated than simple "thing x is the fault of guy Y because he did action Z". Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  4. Enoch07

    Enoch07 It's all a sick freaking joke.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,148
    Ratings:
    +2,300
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist-Christian
    Iranians fired missile at US drone prior to tanker attack, US official says - CNNPolitics

    Middle East analysts see Iran's fingerprints on tanker attacks — but slim chance of war

    The evidence points to Iran.

    And Iran has been in a cold war with Isreal for many years now. Honestly if it wasn't for Israel I'd like to see the U.S pull out of the region and let the E.U deal with the situation once it creeps up to their borders. But we have allies in the region and we need to honor that should we be called upon.
     
  5. Stevicus

    Stevicus Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    7,153
    Ratings:
    +3,479
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I agree with you. I grew up with the same tactics and learned early in life to be able to see through them. As a wee lad growing up during the Vietnam War era, as well as the concurrent Cold War, I saw how the government, the media, as well as others used the same arguments which were outlined in the article you linked.

    But there was also the other side - the same side which oftentimes today gets ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists," since they don't believe everything the government and media spoon-feed the people on a daily basis.

    Throughout my lifetime (and even before), there has always been a strong undercurrent of dissent against government and a mistrust of politicians. I understand and support this. However, my biggest frustration lies with those who constantly defend the government when people put forth allegations of wrongdoing. (I'm not referring to political partisanship or Trump v. Hillary, but people who defend the government for its own sake.)

    From the link:

    I find it interesting that there's a familiar pattern. People will often trust the "official reason" given by government, without any real scrutiny, skepticism, or even the slightest bit of hard evidence - since people tend to give government the benefit of the doubt and accept that we simply have to take their word for it. The same standards are not applied to dissenters who refuse to believe the government, as they're generally put through the ringer and soundly ridiculed, with unreasonable and strident demands for "extraordinary evidence" to support their supposedly "extraordinary claims."

    But I submit that it's not an "extraordinary claim" to suggest that the government is guilty of wrongdoing. Politicians lie; that's common knowledge. It's also common knowledge that the wealthy and powerful interests are those who rule the country, and our society is not really so "free" and "democratic" as so many propagandists would have us believe.

    But if someone tries to tell people that, they constantly run into roadblocks set up by incessant government shills and other cheerleaders for the government.

    I've even seen it in this forum. I've been called out and ridiculed because I dared to refer to the CIA, NSA, and FBI as "scum." People like to think of those agencies as white knights and defenders of freedom, and no one should ever dare question their integrity or honor. Likewise, we're supposed to think the same way about judges, police officers, and prosecuting attorneys.

    However, I don't fully agree with the article where it said:

    I don't believe that it's really true that "people like war." More often than not, people believe in all the myths about America's role of "making the world safe for democracy," and it's from that source of wrong-headed thinking that leads people to conclude that war is necessary in order for America to carry out this holy mission. (Some even think of it as "God's will.")

    Coupled with that is widespread ignorance about what the outside world is really like and how things operate. But that doesn't stop people who barely got through high school touting themselves as supreme experts on geopolitics and the war aims of the Soviet Union (or other countries).

    In the case of Iran, many Americans still remember the embassy takeover in 1979, the holding of our people as hostages, the burning of the American flag, and mobs of people shouting "Death to America!" A lot of people were wanting to go war back then, but Carter refused to do so. Reagan went even further by not only refusing to go to war with Iran, but he made backroom deals with them because he saw Nicaragua as a graver threat to America. (This is the kind of sordid nonsense which really made America appear weak and stupid, as if Fredo Corleone had somehow risen to become head of the Family. This is also the best indication that there are/were a lot of crooked people operating within our government.)

    Since then, we've heard increasingly escalating rhetoric about the dangers posed by Iran - and how they're trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against America. Both parties and most of the mainstream media have been complicit in spreading this rhetoric, so they've been building up to war with Iran for quite some time now.

    Truly, I believe the best way for America to avoid war is to remain neutral as much as possible. We should stay away from permanent alliances and foreign entanglements. We should withdraw our troops from overseas postings and shutter all our overseas bases. We don't need to get involved in this crap.

    I've taken this position many times in the past (which some people misguidedly label as "isolationism," but it isn't). And I've faced the same "usual suspects" who vehemently argue against that position and favor interventionism. Because we're "making the world safe for democracy."

    Believe me, they're not all Trump supporters either.

    One notable individual who was an unabashed interventionist was John McCain, and he was certainly no Trump supporter. A lot of Democrats have also been ardent interventionists (and in fact, it was the Democrats who first came up with these globalist interventionist policies in the first place).

    Another thing the article mentioned was the "wimp" card, but that's pretty easy to counter. After all, it's kind of wimpy to advocate sending young kids off to war while the warhawks stay at home. Moreover, it's equally wimpy to selectively limit our "enemies" only to nations which have absolutely zero chance of fighting back or winning a war against us. Prior to the invasions of Iraq (both in '91 and '03), the media were telling us to expect a long, drawn-out fight, what with Iraq's million-man army and its vaunted Republican Guard.

    The same tough, chest-thumping warhawks suddenly turn into chickenhawks when faced with a proposal to go to war with a country which actually has the capability of fighting back and possibly even hurting us.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,392
    Ratings:
    +5,391
    Religion:
    None
    Defensive?
    You (we) wish. Look up the history of US military engagements.
     
  7. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    22,125
    Ratings:
    +8,177
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    By issue, I mean the reasoning by which we are engaging the country in various conflicts in the first place. We have our theories and speculations of course, but the reality is that very little is being put out to the public other than what's being portrayed on the media.
     
  8. SugarOcean

    SugarOcean ¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2019
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'd suggest you consider their profile picture.
    They're not speaking as an American service person. That's not an American flag in their picture. They're speaking against their own country and its policies.
     
  9. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    8,340
    Ratings:
    +5,849
    Religion:
    Catholic
    My only comment, I rejember the media being pretty pro war wowserish in '91, less so for round two, but still everyone was certain it would all be over quickly, with a minimum of casualties to our soldiers and their civilians.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,862
    Ratings:
    +13,143
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Obama was given a bad position. It was a complex situation that still could have used some oversight. Just pulling out all but guaranteed their resurgence.
     
  11. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    8,340
    Ratings:
    +5,849
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I'm speaking against America, too, but only because Australia follows American cues in such matters. We have, essentially, served as American vassal auxiliaries since the Pacific campaign in the Second World War.
     
  12. SugarOcean

    SugarOcean ¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2019
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, that's not precisely the case.
    We discussed this on forum years ago and with his permission I repost an addition to that Quora engagement here.
    Shared from:
    Why didn't Congress vote to declare war on Iraq/Afghanistan in 2003?
    https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Congress-vote-to-declare-war-on-Iraq-Afghanistan-in-2003

    Carter Moore, worked at U.S. Congress
    Answered May 13 2014 · Author has 3.8k answers and 14m answer views

    Because of a very complicated history the US has with war and the views of the president's role of Commander-in-Chief.

    Congress has only ever issued 11 declarations of war over the course of 5 conflicts:

    • 1812 against Great Britain
    • 1846 against Mexico
    • 1898 against Spain
    • 1917 against Germany and Austria-Hungary
    • 1941-1942 against Japan, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Rumania.

    In each case, the wars were declared against specific nations to defend against imminent threats (real and perceived) to the security of core US territory and possessions. Each declaration of war gave the president broad authority to mobilize the military and government to prosecute those wars.

    However, since the very early days of the Republic, there's been a grey area for those conflicts where it's been seen as necessary to use military force, but not such a threat to hand broader authority to the president. This is where Congressional authorizations for the use of military force were created - permission given by Congress to the president to engage in hostilities, but not so much as to mobilize the whole of the military or government. This started as early as 1798 when President Adams requested military force to protect American commercial shipping from French attacks, and the Congress gave him limited authorization to do so.

    Declarations of war were also once a necessity under international law and customs to make any seizure of land and assets legal, as well as to bind nations engaged in combat to international codes of war.

    However, in the later half of the 20th century, two major conflicts significantly changed US policy towards warfare: Korea and Vietnam.

    In the first, the US sent a considerable armed force to support an international mission without any declaration by Congress. As the war escalated, President Truman faced significant criticism; and so it was one of Eisenhower's first actions to seek peace talks and reduce America's commitment.

    The UN-authorized conflict also altered the international community's concept of what a legal war entails, no longer limited to one state, or many states, formally declaring war on each other. "Armed conflicts" became part of the nomenclature for having the effect of war without a state of war being openly declared.

    For the Vietnam War, Presient Johnson did get Congressional authorization; however, the subsequent escalations were not subject to Congressional requests (except for funding). When Congress repealed its AUMF for Vietnam in 1971, however, there was nothing in place to compel the president to withdraw all forces until the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973.

    After the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam, and over President Nixon's veto, Congress passed and enacted the War Powers Resolution to reassert its Constitutional place over warmaking authority (it was not, as some have claimed, Congress ceding its war authority to the president). The goal of the WPR was to recognize the president's role as Commander-in-Chief while denying him unilateral ability to escalate US involvement in a conflict without authorization or oversight.

    This brings us to Afghanistan and Iraq.

    In the former case, certainly it would not be too great a leap in logic to have outright declared war on Afghanistan for having given material support to the 9/11 attacks. However, such a declaration of war would have been limited, then, to Afghanistan. What was needed was a response not just to nations which harboured and supported terrorists, but the terrorist organizations themselves. Thus, Congress authorized military force not just against Afghanistan, but against terrorist organizations that threaten the US, wherever they exist, and the nations which support them.

    In the case of Iraq, where the target was, in fact, a single nation, a declaration of war did not fit into the historical context because Iraq did not pose an immediate military threat to the US - even though the AUMF would cite a "continuing threat," the president's initial case was that the war was needed to preempt a threat - and nor was war with Iraq "thrust upon" the US (language used in every declaration of war issued by Congress). Additionally, a major part of the justification to invade was to enforce UN resolutions, which elevated the conflict beyond a state of war between nations.

    The AUMFs enacted for both Iraq and Afghanistan require the president to regularly report to Congress, the implicit function being that, if Congress, in its oversight, determines that force is no longer prudent, could withdraw the authorizations and, per the WPR, require the president to end military operations within 60 to 90 days (avoiding a repeat of when Congress' withdrawal of authorization from Vietnam was effectively ignored).

    In short, a declaration of war is no longer the necessity it once was to commit the full force of the US to conflict - either domestically or internationally. This is due to a shift in views about the president's authority to engage the military, Congress' capacity for oversight, and international attitudes towards armed conflicts.

    For further information - perhaps the most thorough review of the history of the US' approach to warmaking available on the Internet: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nats...
     
  13. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    22,125
    Ratings:
    +8,177
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Looking at some of the videos, there was one in particular where an Iranian ship was trying to remove an unexploded mine from a Japanese ship.

    The spin so far was they were trying to remove evidence of their involvement by taking the mines off with them. And while I don't consider that a complete impossibility, it doesn't strike me as being Iran's intent here in this instance and the Japanese were not viewing the Iranians there as hostile.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    8,340
    Ratings:
    +5,849
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It's all very complex, and with hindsight, I think the current Middle Eastern quagnire was inevitable once "debaathification" policies were enacted. Realistically and fundamentally it all goes back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Western support of Israel, (or to the Fall of the Ottomans... or even to the Crusades, arguably) but people have trouble thinking of the Middle East in time frames beyond current events or in detail beyond sentence long sound bites. Trying to explain the 7000 odd competing, occasionally allied, occasionally enemy, constantly shifting factions at play in the ME, acting as the do on decade and ce tury long timescales, to the Western mind, trained as it is to believe any drama can be fully and completely resolved in a half hour plus ad breaks, is rather a Sisyphean task.
     
    #54 Kangaroo Feathers, Jun 14, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    8,340
    Ratings:
    +5,849
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Stand by for well poisoning demonisation of aljazeera, that's pretty standard whenever their reporting doesn't follow American narratives.
     
  16. Enoch07

    Enoch07 It's all a sick freaking joke.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,148
    Ratings:
    +2,300
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist-Christian
    I see he answered this question himself so no need for me to chime in and add to that.

    Had he posted in his specific regions section, I would not have too much to say. But this is just a general political forum so unless specified otherwise it's fair game.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  17. SugarOcean

    SugarOcean ¡pɹᴉǝM ʎɐʇS

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2019
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +178
    Religion:
    Christian
    Understood. My point was his observations are not that of one who is American or who served in the American military.While reading his remarks absent that distinction could lead one to believe he was speaking as an American who did serve in our armed forces.
    My point was made for the sake of clarity.
     
  18. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,862
    Ratings:
    +13,143
    Religion:
    Atheist
    If you are talking about @Kangaroo Feathers his user name, his avatar, and his spelling tells you that he is Australian. They were our allies in those wars.
     
  19. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    8,340
    Ratings:
    +5,849
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The camouflage pattern is unique to the Australian military, too. Just for interest's sake.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. dianaiad

    dianaiad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,566
    Ratings:
    +802
    Religion:
    LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints)
     
Loading...