View Poll Results: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Positive

    13 19.40%
  • Negative

    30 44.78%
  • Other

    24 35.82%
Page 37 of 42 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 419

Thread: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

  1. #361
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,013

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The problem, as i see it, is that we have separated the declaration of war from being a conflict between the US (and perhaps allies defined by treaty/mutual agreement) and a defined nation (or group of nations) as the enemy to being a war on "crime" (currently mostly terrorism and drugs) wherever in the world it may be deemed to exist. War is not an excuse to engage in a global police action and our military should not become a global police force.
    And if it drags on, it becomes politicized. Pelosi, Reid, and gang for instance were hoping the US would lose the war in Iraq in hopes that the democrats would gain as well as the did in regards to Vietnam.

  2. #362
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,013

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Or.......................just stop instigating hostilities to begin with and become the arbiters of peace, novel I know, and you'll naturally twist your warmongering meme to suggest we aren't the aggressors in the ME, I'm sure.
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

    Perhaps when you grow past your indoctrination formed antiwar ideology, you will understand the above quote.

  3. #363
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,484

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    It was not the US that built the "Iron Curtain".

    Of course, had the US simply gone back to isolationism and ignored the Soviet Union, then there wouldn't have been a cold war. The Soviets would still have their empire, though, and it would be a lot bigger than it was back in the 1980s.


    I just read a book about Truman written while he was still alive.

    It paints a picture of a president in over his head but is too arrogant to know it. He was obsessed with the Russians. Where his predecessor had been able to work with Stalin, Truman was terrified. He hinted to Stalin early on they had a "great weapon" to use against Japan. Stalin already knew and was months away from perfecting his own.

    It makes you wonder who became weird first? The Russians, far more vulnerable than anyone suspect after the war saw themselves under attack, there had been so much anti_communism in the US THEY were scared.....add to that their spies knew of the Manhattan Project from the outset, they appear to have had reason to be. The US after all, actually used two...
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  4. #364
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    I just read a book about Truman written while he was still alive.

    It paints a picture of a president in over his head but is too arrogant to know it. He was obsessed with the Russians. Where his predecessor had been able to work with Stalin, Truman was terrified. He hinted to Stalin early on they had a "great weapon" to use against Japan. Stalin already knew and was months away from perfecting his own.

    It makes you wonder who became weird first? The Russians, far more vulnerable than anyone suspect after the war saw themselves under attack, there had been so much anti_communism in the US THEY were scared.....add to that their spies knew of the Manhattan Project from the outset, they appear to have had reason to be. The US after all, actually used two...
    Of course they were afraid of their former ally, the US and its terrible new weapon. We had nukes, and had already shown willingness to use them. Stalin was no doubt afraid Moscow would be next.

    We were not at war, however, with the Soviets and never have been. It's a good thing for them we didn't declare war right after WWII ended, and it's a good thing for both of us that the cold war never became a hot war.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  5. #365
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,484

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    At the first UN assembly, with the creation of the Atomic Energy Commission, the US argued for regulation of nuclear weapons while the Soviet Union argued for universal disarmament! The US rejected that proposal, and the arms race began.
    You are correct, the first item of business for the UN was Resolution 1.

    But I believe you have that backward. The "Baruch Plan" called for the complete ban and disarmament of nuclear weapons.

    On 14 June 1946, the United States representative to the Commission, Bernard Baruch, presented the Baruch Plan, wherein the United States (at the time the only state possessing atomic weapons) would destroy its atomic arsenal on the condition that the U.N. imposed controls on atomic development that would not be subject to United Nations Security Council veto. These controls would allow only the peaceful use of atomic energy. The plan was passed by the Commission, but not agreed to by the Soviet Union who abstained on the proposal in the Security Council. Debate on the plan continued into 1948, but by early 1947 it was clear that agreement was unlikely.[5]
    United Nations Atomic Energy Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Long ago I studied where many in the upper echelons of the US military saw nuclear weaponry as too powerful for war, leading to the idea of "conventional warfare" a term not in use before. A I recall, the USSR was so terrified of the US, anti-commie rhetoric, HUAC et all, they simply could not allow for the US to be the only one...they could not believe the US would agree to destroy all they're own weapons as they wouldn't have; let's face it, the US was very naive
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  6. #366
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    You've already been corrected on this.
    Funny that you say so, given that I have never pointed it out to you before.

    During the United Nation's first General Assembly in London in January 1946, they discussed the future of Nuclear Weapons and created the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The goal of this assembly was to eliminate the use of all Nuclear weapons. The United States presented their solution, which was called the Baruch Plan.[9] This plan proposed that there should be an international authority that controls all dangerous atomic activities. The Soviet Union disagreed with this proposal and rejected it. The Soviets' proposal involved universal nuclear disarmament.
    That is correct. The US proposed "universal" (which practically at that point just meant the US) nuclear disarmament with inspections. That was the Baruch Plan. The Baruch Plan proposed:

    1. extend between all countries the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends;
    2. implement control of nuclear power to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes;
    3. eliminate from national armaments atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and
    4. establish effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions


    The Soviet Union rejected that proposal, and instead proposed "universal" nuclear disarmament without inspections.

    IOW, the Soviets wanted the US to give up its' nukes, but were unwilling to sign on to any regime which might keep them from then developing nukes.
    Last edited by cpwill; 09-14-14 at 04:12 PM.

  7. #367
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    You are correct, the first item of business for the UN was Resolution 1.

    But I believe you have that backward. The "Baruch Plan" called for the complete ban and disarmament of nuclear weapons.



    Long ago I studied where many in the upper echelons of the US military saw nuclear weaponry as too powerful for war, leading to the idea of "conventional warfare" a term not in use before. A I recall, the USSR was so terrified of the US, anti-commie rhetoric, HUAC et all, they simply could not allow for the US to be the only one...they could not believe the US would agree to destroy all they're own weapons as they wouldn't have; let's face it, the US was very naive
    Perhaps Wiki is in conflict.

    Shortly after the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was founded. This international organization with the goal of stopping wars between countries was the world’s answer to replace the League of Nations. During the United Nation's first General Assembly in London in January 1946, they discussed the future of Nuclear Weapons and created the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The goal of this assembly was to eliminate the use of all Nuclear weapons. The United States presented their solution, which was called the Baruch Plan.[9] This plan proposed that there should be an international authority that controls all dangerous atomic activities. The Soviet Union disagreed with this proposal and rejected it. The Soviets' proposal involved universal nuclear disarmament. Both the American and Soviet proposals were refused by the UN.

    Still trying to find out why the UN refused both proposals.
    Last edited by Montecresto; 09-14-14 at 06:11 PM.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #368
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Funny that you say so, given that I have never pointed it out to you before.



    That is correct. The US proposed "universal" (which practically at that point just meant the US) nuclear disarmament with inspections. That was the Baruch Plan. The Baruch Plan proposed:

    1. extend between all countries the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends;
    2. implement control of nuclear power to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes;
    3. eliminate from national armaments atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and
    4. establish effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions


    The Soviet Union rejected that proposal, and instead proposed "universal" nuclear disarmament without inspections.

    IOW, the Soviets wanted the US to give up its' nukes, but were unwilling to sign on to any regime which might keep them from then developing nukes.
    This plan was rejected by the UN as well. Perhaps we should just agree then that the Cold War was a natural occurrence given the two superpowers mutual distrust for one another.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #369
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    This plan was rejected by the UN as well. Perhaps we should just agree then that the Cold War was a natural occurrence given the two superpowers mutual distrust for one another.
    if you are willing to back down from your position that it was somehow the fault of the US, that pretty much fulfils my intended response. The Cold War was certainly a natural occurrence - there is a reason Thucydides became a source in it.

  10. #370
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    if you are willing to back down from your position that it was somehow the fault of the US, that pretty much fulfils my intended response. The Cold War was certainly a natural occurrence - there is a reason Thucydides became a source in it.
    Well, if there were two parties engaged in the Cold War, and you deny that the US was the instigator, then either your position is that it was the USSR's fault, or you agree that it was a natural occurrence given the mutual distrust of both super powers, and therefore nobody's fault. But I will remain in the camp with those that believe we would have done better to retain the USSR as an ally, as opposed to running a race for the most nuclear weapons. And fighting the senseless proxy wars of the Cold War.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Page 37 of 42 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... 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
  •