This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

"If we do not take that city, the World Trade Center will just be the beginning"

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

This is what is playing in a trailer for a new combat movie to be released later this month. Domino theory in the mountains of Afghanastan......are you kidding me. Justifying the invasion of Afghanastan as if killing people in that country is going to stop that nation state from hurting America.....It is absolute war mongering brainwashing. The criminal terrorist act of a a conspiracy among criminals in AlQueda were not a nation state.

I heard a young person complaining that all they have done is jack up tuitions over the last twenty years which means a person working in the private sector has to borrow money to go to college, while in a military state, the rising tuitions become a recruiting mechanism for kids who have no options. In the late sixties tuition was free in state universities in California, and private sector kids were pouring out getting educations as rampant economic growth became the norm.

Now it is just like the exploitation by the British wealth in colonial times....unless you are loyalist to the crown, citizens are exploited by the same.

View user profile
How about a clip from this film or at least the full title?

View user profile
Never mind I found it. I wonder if Tom Petty okayed his song being used. Good cast. If they can't defeat the taliban they can challenge the marvel and dc universe.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:This is what is playing in a trailer for a new combat movie to be released later this month.   Domino theory in the mountains of  Afghanastan......are you kidding me.   Justifying the invasion of Afghanastan as if killing people in that country is going to stop that nation state from hurting America.

There was no "Domino theory" justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. The ruling Taliban--a brutal and repressive regime--were providing sanctuary for Al Quaeda and refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after 9/11.  A joint US/UK task force, in cooperation with the Afghani Northern Alliance, overthrew the Taliban, captured Kabul and began a manhunt for bin Laden.

After the Taliban took over in 1996, they had been the targets of worldwide censure for the horrors they inflicted on the Afghan people. If ever a regime deserved destruction, it was them. They routinely used murder, rape, crucifiction and other atrocities such as skinning people alive to control the population and enforce Sharia law. Maybe you heard about it, everyone else on the planet did.

They were awful people: "'You must become so notorious for bad things that when you come into an area people will tremble in their sandals. Anyone can do beatings and starve people. I want your unit to find new ways of torture so terrible that the screams will frighten even crows from their nests and if the person survives he will never again have a night's sleep.' These were the instructions of the commandant of the Afghan secret police to his new recruits." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358063/I-was-one-of-the-Talibans-torturers-I-crucified-people.html

As the most powerful nation on earth, we had a moral duty of care to destroy that regime just as we had in WWII to invade Europe and destroy the Nazis.

It was only after Bush invaded Iraq--a war for which there truly was no justification--and began moving forces from Afghanistan to Iraq that things fell apart.

View user profile
Jingoism's always obnoxious, but I'm fine with the Afghan war. The Taliban and Al Quada needed taking out. The mis-step was going into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and ended up destabilizing the whole region and making us look like "crusaders" ...which, honestly, a lot of Christians who are jihidi-counterparts want us to be, anyway... I'd take the war on religious extremism more seriously if we'd address our own radicalized extremists. But we won't, because holding Christian extremists accountable for anything is "politically incorrect." The right's all against political correctness until you start poking at the horseshit they hold sacred, and then they wail louder than anybody.

Iraq was dumb and a huge mistake... but Afghanistan was a worthy target.

View user profile
but Afghanistan was a worthy target.


I disagree. A much smaller response for about six months was all we should have done. The Taliban may be reactionary tribalism, but it was never our business. The idea that the invasion of Afghanistan was anything but a huge historical error in American foreign policy is mistaken. If we did not go into Afghanistan, it would have been much more difficult to go into Iraq. Expeditionary invasions of sovereign nations is hubris. We are the most dangerous thing in the world today.

I would ask after spending 7 trillion dollars on expeditionary forces in non threatening nations because some folks in those nations hold criminal ideology and are law breakers are we better off? Of course not. It is exactly what our founding fathers feared. A standing army and continuous war.

View user profile
Those WMD's were just a big joke to some people.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:but Afghanistan was a worthy target.
I disagree.
blah, blah, blah...
...standing army and continuous war.

You bleat the same crap over-and-over again: Standing Army! Continuous War! Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the world since WWII is a better and safer place with America's power and influence than it would have been without it.

Now we're faced with the growing power and influence of China under Xi Jinping and his "catch-up and overtake" worldview. You're a fool if you think that American military retrenchment would result in anything but Chinese domination of the world.

You seem to hold the same crazy notion as Donald Trump--that America should only do what is best for American interests--ignoring the fact that America's actions in the past half-century have had an affirmative effect on the rest of the planet.  America has a duty and obligation to its allies and neighbors. It's either us or a Chinese "them". How's your Mandarin?

Wake up! The founding fathers have been dead for two hundred years and the world is a vastly different place.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:but Afghanistan was a worthy target.


I disagree.  A much smaller response for about six months was all we should have done.  The Taliban may be reactionary tribalism, but it was never our business.   The idea that the invasion of Afghanistan was anything but a huge historical error in American foreign policy is mistaken.  If we did not go into Afghanistan, it would have been much more difficult to go into Iraq.  Expeditionary invasions of sovereign nations is hubris.   We are the most dangerous thing in the world today.

I would ask after spending 7 trillion dollars on expeditionary forces in non threatening nations because some folks in those nations hold criminal ideology and are law breakers are we better off?   Of course not.  It is exactly what our founding fathers feared.   A standing army and continuous war.

I agree. And since the perpetrators (?) turned out to be Saudi nationals, where was our invasion of Saudi Arabia?

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
I agree.  And since the perpetrators (?) turned out to be Saudi nationals, where was our invasion of Saudi Arabia?

Al Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban, a regime who routinely used rape as an instrument of oppression and control...  but I guess you're okay with that, huh?

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
I agree.  And since the perpetrators (?) turned out to be Saudi nationals, where was our invasion of Saudi Arabia?

Al Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban, a regime who routinely used rape as an instrument of oppression and control...  but I guess you're okay with that, huh?



View user profile
Telstar wrote:

Phil Ochs, huh? And how'd things turn out for him?

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
Telstar wrote:

Phil Ochs, huh? And how'd things turn out for him?



View user profile

Guest


Guest
2seaoat wrote:This is what is playing in a trailer for a new combat movie to be released later this month.   Domino theory in the mountains of  Afghanastan......are you kidding me.   Justifying the invasion of Afghanastan as if killing people in that country is going to stop that nation state from hurting America.....It is absolute war mongering brainwashing.  The criminal terrorist act of a a conspiracy among criminals in AlQueda were not a nation state.  

I heard a young person complaining that all they have done is jack up tuitions over the last twenty years which means a person working in the private sector has to borrow money to go to college, while in a military state, the rising tuitions become a recruiting mechanism for kids who have no options.  In the late sixties tuition was free in state universities in California, and private sector kids were pouring out getting educations as rampant economic growth became the norm.

Now it is just like the exploitation by the British wealth in colonial times....unless you are loyalist to the crown, citizens are exploited by the same.

Time for you to pony up and admit you have a hardon for men who do things you can’t even imagine in your own dreams. Those men have more testosterone in their little toe than in your entire body.

ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
2seaoat wrote:This is what is playing in a trailer for a new combat movie to be released later this month.   Domino theory in the mountains of  Afghanastan......are you kidding me.   Justifying the invasion of Afghanastan as if killing people in that country is going to stop that nation state from hurting America.....It is absolute war mongering brainwashing.  The criminal terrorist act of a a conspiracy among criminals in AlQueda were not a nation state.  

I heard a young person complaining that all they have done is jack up tuitions over the last twenty years which means a person working in the private sector has to borrow money to go to college, while in a military state, the rising tuitions become a recruiting mechanism for kids who have no options.  In the late sixties tuition was free in state universities in California, and private sector kids were pouring out getting educations as rampant economic growth became the norm.

Now it is just like the exploitation by the British wealth in colonial times....unless you are loyalist to the crown, citizens are exploited by the same.

Time for you to pony up and admit you have a hardon for men who do things you can’t even imagine in your own dreams. Those men have more testosterone in their little toe than in your entire body.

OMG, stop with the male posturing. Do you think that because a man didn't serve in the military, he's incapable of courage? What hubris.

View user profile
ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
2seaoat wrote:This is what is playing in a trailer for a new combat movie to be released later this month.   Domino theory in the mountains of  Afghanastan......are you kidding me.   Justifying the invasion of Afghanastan as if killing people in that country is going to stop that nation state from hurting America.....It is absolute war mongering brainwashing.  The criminal terrorist act of a a conspiracy among criminals in AlQueda were not a nation state.  

I heard a young person complaining that all they have done is jack up tuitions over the last twenty years which means a person working in the private sector has to borrow money to go to college, while in a military state, the rising tuitions become a recruiting mechanism for kids who have no options.  In the late sixties tuition was free in state universities in California, and private sector kids were pouring out getting educations as rampant economic growth became the norm.

Now it is just like the exploitation by the British wealth in colonial times....unless you are loyalist to the crown, citizens are exploited by the same.

Time for you to pony up and admit you have a hardon for men who do things you can’t even imagine in your own dreams. Those men have more testosterone in their little toe than in your entire body.

C'mon, get real. It's these same testosterone he-men who come home and suck pistols because they only place they can really cut it is where they can play heroes with other wussies. Really. You should come out of the closet and tell us what it was like showering with these types ...

View user profile
Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the world since WWII is a better and safer place with America's power and influence

If you mean propping up colonialism, and supporting puppet regimes, sure it is safer for those dictators and monarchies.  There is no quantifiable and logical retort to your less than stellar generalization.  Where is the price point that post WWII peace could be maintained.   I would argue if that price point was lower, it would be better for the world, and the MIC and expeditionary exporting of war would have been much less over the last 60 years.

This idea that military personnel are tougher than civilians is just hilarious to me.   You probably have never ever met a hardened tough guy.......they do not join the military because by 17 they have already been in jail.  Most ex military remind me of Wally Cox.  I am sorry.  Little guys who want to have big boyz dreams, are not something that a well adjusted and confident male needs, they get laid, they get a good education, and they find good work......like being in the military would be anybody's first choice.

 I have had my asz kicked by three people, and I can tell you with absolute confidence, they never even thought about taking orders from anybody......tough guys........I will go to sleep tonight with a smile.  We are going to save America.......if not.......they will be landing on Jersey Shores, but for Wally Cox and his wanabees.



Last edited by 2seaoat on 1/4/2018, 1:19 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
OMG, stop with the male posturing. Do you think that because a man didn't serve in the military, he's incapable of courage? What hubris.

This is the catch 22. If sanity returns to America, we will cut military spending and set up defensive strategies. However, to suggest the same is construed as an attack on the Military man.....the soldier.......the wounded veteran.......the mother who lost her son. This macho connection has been the backbone of every military dictatorship in history. Our founding fathers understood that war and standing armies were a real danger to democracy, and how that macho connection leads to continuous war.

I have found the only solution is to attack the status of the soldier. You will often see me talk about government teat suckers, how we have a mercenary army, and that these folks with all the macho are having more difficulty handling sophisticated technology which the military needs more brains than braun and raw meat to throw at things.

I went for years honoring veterans, until I saw my son's friends who were all screwed up joining the military and coming out more screwed up and gung ho for war. No until this utter myth that America is the good guy and that our soldiers are doing good things, we cannot recognize the humanity of a five year old Syrian child be bombed by our planes. A million civilian deaths because George got up and went macho......instead of engaging his brain and seeking alternatives. I am so happy Larry David had the episode on thanking veterans for their service.........once when we were not evil and wrong.....that actually was a good thing. No more.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the world since WWII is a better and safer place with America's power and influence

If you mean propping up colonialism, and supporting puppet regimes, sure it is safer for those dictators and monarchies.  

Your comment about propping up colonialism is historically inaccurate. As is well known by all, except you apparently, Britain's colonial empire was the one bone of contention between FDR and Churchill.

An eyewitness account of the struggle between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, over the fate of the post-war world is contained in the book by the President's son, Elliott Roosevelt, 'As He Saw It,' (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946). Elliott Roosevelt was an aide to his father at all but one of the Big Three conferences during World War II. Elliott Roosevelt recounts how his father, the American President laid out his determination to shape a post-war world free of colonialism, and his perspective for the economic development of the former colonies to eradicate poverty and illiteracy.
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html

But, yes, there were all those abuses and I opposed them all at the time. What were you doing? Oh, that's right, you were a Republican who supported all that crap, so don't start lecturing me about this stuff.

From the Bay of Pigs to Mossaddegh to Arbenz and, later, Allende, to the Greek junta and, ultimately the Church committee, I was aware of and working against all those abuses. Yes, it was all wrong and in some ways unjustifiable...    but it pales in comparison to the Gulag and the Stasi and the terror-famine of the Ukrains and One Day in the the Life of Ivan Denisovich and various other Soviet oppressions of civilian populations under their control. It was very close to a binary world back then and I'm glad the US won the cold war.

2seaoat wrote: Where is the price point that post WWII peace could be maintained.   I would argue if that price point was lower, it would be better for the world, and the MIC and expeditionary exporting of war would have been much less over the last 60 years.

"Well, we've determined what you are, now we're just haggling over price." At the time, honorable men felt there was no choice, that the Soviet empire was so evil that any cost was justifiable. There's no doubt that you're right, it would have been better if the cost was lower but that's hindsight. Was there an opportunity to reduce the cost? I don't know, but I'm glad things turned out the way they did.

View user profile
"And my button is bigger than his ...."

View user profile
Your comment about propping up colonialism is historically inaccurate.

Nope....nailed it. You think our criticism of the British colonial rule was not self serving.....yep, you got that history down. We have supported every petty military coup and dictatorship which suppressed the people and made sure that United Fruit and other American multi national corporations could rape nations without resistance. Pax Americana......you bought it hook line and sinker.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the world since WWII is a better and safer place with America's power and influence

If you mean propping up colonialism, and supporting puppet regimes, sure it is safer for those dictators and monarchies.  

Your comment about propping up colonialism is historically inaccurate. As is well known by all, except you apparently, Britain's colonial empire was the one bone of contention between FDR and Churchill.

An eyewitness account of the struggle between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, over the fate of the post-war world is contained in the book by the President's son, Elliott Roosevelt, 'As He Saw It,' (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946). Elliott Roosevelt was an aide to his father at all but one of the Big Three conferences during World War II. Elliott Roosevelt recounts how his father, the American President laid out his determination to shape a post-war world free of colonialism, and his perspective for the economic development of the former colonies to eradicate poverty and illiteracy.
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html

But, yes, there were all those abuses and I opposed them all at the time. What were you doing? Oh, that's right, you were a Republican who supported all that crap, so don't start lecturing me about this stuff.

From the Bay of Pigs to Mossaddegh to Arbenz and, later, Allende, to the Greek junta and, ultimately the Church committee, I was aware of and working against all those abuses. Yes, it was all wrong and in some ways unjustifiable...    but it pales in comparison to the Gulag and the Stasi and the terror-famine of the Ukrains and One Day in the the Life of Ivan Denisovich and various other Soviet oppressions of civilian populations under their control. It was very close to a binary world back then and I'm glad the US won the cold war.

2seaoat wrote: Where is the price point that post WWII peace could be maintained.   I would argue if that price point was lower, it would be better for the world, and the MIC and expeditionary exporting of war would have been much less over the last 60 years.

"Well, we've determined what you are, now we're just haggling over price." At the time, honorable men felt there was no choice, that the Soviet empire was so evil that any cost was justifiable. There's no doubt that you're right, it would have been better if the cost was lower but that's hindsight. Was there an opportunity to reduce the cost? I don't know, but I'm glad things turned out the way they did.

I recall that Russia was our (reluctant) ally in WWII. Whence all the "honor" of considering the Soviets the enemy postwar? The US also held off entering the war until Pearl Harbor, and although US casualties were high, Soviet casualties were even higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

View user profile
The idea that America's conduct was clean and without self serving interest.....naive would be polite.

View user profile
Perhaps you can recognize the differences between east and west Germany... but I doubt it.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:Perhaps you can recognize the differences between east and west Germany... but I doubt it.

Why don't you enumerate the differences for us? None of us have read any books about WWII or seen any documentaries. Please inform us with your superior knowledge. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum