View Poll Results: Are Neocons A Threat To World Peace?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    44 61.11%
  • No

    28 38.89%
Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 285

Thread: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

  1. #241
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    McCain wants to bring Ukraine into NATO so that we will have to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
    Yeah well, McCain needs to go back on his meds.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #242
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,125

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    In reality the technological advances have created an insensitivity to killing that is exemplified by the current President of the United States getting a daily list of people who are to be killed by remote control. In the process many innocent people have been killed and are casually written off as collateral damage. The collateral damage designation itself legitimizes the killing because it implies that what was done was humane.
    dude, killing people by drone reduces civilian casualties. Some studies say we've managed to get it down to about 2%. The Mitigated Combined Effects Radius of a Hellfire is incredibly tight compared to any similar system that has been employed, and (furthermore), we actually care about trying to reduce civilian casualties now. A few centuries ago, mass civilian casualties would have simply been considered a good way to make a point.

    Did you talk to someone dying from cancer due to radiation poisoning from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Did they say, thanks for the humane death?
    Nope. Are you suggesting that your emotional hyperventilation should trump actual historical data, given that the latter disagrees with you?

    Since you are profess to know so much about warfare and it's history, can you point to references that state that Chandragupta, who founded the Maurya empire, engaged in raping and killing innocent civilians? Or more recently, did Jai Singh who founded Jaipur engage in such atrocities? The people you were referring to were barbarians, similar to the present day savages.
    The initial Islamic conquest of Egypt, too, was (at the time) considered to have occurred with a minimum of rapine. Barbarians? Heck, it was the 4th Century BC.

    Again, the actual data is against you on this.

  3. #243
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    McCain wants to bring Ukraine into NATO so that we will have to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
    And there's a lot that can be said - both good and bad - about that particular idea.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  4. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Purpose? Assuming that it is doctored, there was no purpose because OBVIOUSLY I didn't know the photo was doctored. Why was it so OBVIOUS to you that I would post an OBVIOUSLY doctored photo in the discussion? What would be my OBVIOUS purpose in doing so?

    Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion? Do you dispute that there were birth defects that were the result of a single nuclear bomb being dropped on Hiroshima? Or is this the limit of your contribution?

    Assuming that it is indeed a doctored photo, how do you know for a fact that it is so? Is it a famous photo? What is it about the photo that let's you know that it is doctored?
    I didn't realize you'd get so excited over a rather straightforward question. Maybe it's time to switch to decaffeinated.

  5. #245
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    A guns not a threat at all - the person using the gun is the threat. However, in your example you stated an un-tested gun. An un-tested gun is only a threat to the person doing the testing... if it's never tested an inanimate object is not a threat. NATO is an untested inanimate object. Do you really think that NATO is feared in the world?
    In response, I will simply state that a gun that has been properly manufactured is that threat if it is loaded and aimed at someone else with the intent to kill, regardless to whether it has ever been fired or not.

  6. #246
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    In response, I will simply state that a gun that has been properly manufactured is that threat if it is loaded and aimed at someone else with the intent to kill, regardless to whether it has ever been fired or not.
    The threat is not the gun - the threat is the intelligence pointing the gun. The gun is simply a tool. It could be a rock, or an arrow, or a knife, or a lead pipe. However we are digressing. The purpose of this is to show NATO is not a threat - they are not a threat because they are not used. They are not used because the intelligence directing NATO in this case has never once tested it, therefore if it's never been tested one cannot know if it will work properly. Who is threatened by a NATO which has for 40 years never been used and never been tested?

    The answer to the direct question which I asked you previously is: No one is frightened by NATO in the world.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    dude, killing people by drone reduces civilian casualties.
    The point is that contrary to you claims that there has been an increase in empathy, the use of drones as in the example of Obama and his kill lists has created an increased insensitivity to killing. The notion of collateral damage is a convenient label that whitewashes the killing of innocent people.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Nope.
    That's right. And if you did, they would not likely agree with your biased assessment that war is less gruesome and more clean.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Are you suggesting that your emotional hyperventilation should trump actual historical data, given that the latter disagrees with you?
    Are you suggesting that the bombing of Hiroshima did not kill one third of the population, did not destroy two thirds of the city, did not cause cancer, did not cause birth defects, and did not cause mental retardation? Are you saying that those facts are simply emotional hyperventilation?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The initial Islamic conquest of Egypt, too, was (at the time) considered to have occurred with a minimum of rapine.
    My point is that not everyone engaged in raping and killing civilians. Actually I brought up those two kings because I thought that since you claimed to have studied war so extensively you might know something about them. But I guess not.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Barbarians? Heck, it was the 4th Century BC.

    Again, the actual data is against you on this[/url].
    Yep, people that engage in intentionally killing innocent civilians are barbarians.

    Again, the point was that the technological advances that were a result of the industrial revolution have made modern warfare an increasingly brutal and gruesome affair. This is so because advances in technology have made it possible for one weapon to inflict harm on huge quantities of people and create large scale destruction to the environment. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an example of this.

    Regarding barbarism, here's what Admiral William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff had to say

    The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.
    Last edited by MildSteel; 04-17-14 at 06:31 PM.

  8. #248
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    The threat is not the gun - the threat is the intelligence pointing the gun.
    If you want to put it like that no weapon is a threat and NATO is not a threat either, it's the people.

  9. #249
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I didn't realize you'd get so excited over a rather straightforward question. Maybe it's time to switch to decaffeinated.
    I didn't realize you would be so intimidated by some simple questions. Maybe it's time to chill and be quiet if you don't have something substantial to say.

  10. #250
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    The neocon notion of strength is flawed in that it assumes that strength is manifested only when the will of one side is imposed on the opposition. And this simply is not true because no one in this world of fallible mortals has ever been observed to have absolute strength such that in all circumstances their will is imposed on all. Indeed this position is reserved for that most perfect one that Jesus referred to when he taught his disciples to pray, thy will be done in Earth as in heaven. Therefore true strength in this world means to properly understand the limits of the influence one has been granted by providence and to be satisfied with that. Intelligence means that one understands that it is not possible to always impose one's will on others. And it is not a symptom of weakness to understand this. Rather weakness is to believe that because one is not successful in imposing one's will one is weak.

    Neocons would have us believe that if the US cannot or does not impose it's will in a contested area it is weak. This is no necessarily so. Sometimes there may be limits imposed on US influence, even though it is strong. Furthermore sometimes although it may be possible to impose one's will in the short term, the long term consequences far outweigh the benefits. Therefore in such a situation, it is better not to do so. And that does not make one weak.

    The other problem is that the political climate is such that people in general have not been educated to understand these principles. Therefore wicked people, who simply want to get some political influence, will deceive people that someone in a position of power is weak, when in reality this may not be the case. And that goes to another point. We need a better system of education so that people will not be susceptible to the influence of such wicked people.

Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •