Graffias
Rogue
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 924
- Reaction score
- 309
- Location
- Midwest U.S
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Generalizations like that are the essence of propaganda the world over and politicians that resort to them are always a danger..
As to the matter. Where boots on the ground might become necessary, it would be the right thing to do. The challenge is knowing why, when and how.
With respect to the Republicans, they've been calling for boots on the ground all over the planet, just as they always do. War makes people lots of money who hire people to lobby Congress to make them money by giving them a donation for their upcoming campaign - Politician wins his election and the War Industry people get their War which = $.
They will find a reason to go headlong into places we shouldn't and will ****in' lie about if they have to.
I am not sure that the Republicans have put boots on the ground more often than Democrats. I think you might want to revise that allegation. You see, invasions can make sense and be the right decision. It is very similar to the SWAT teams.
Historically international security has had to be organized like Wild West Peace Making. It has been and is to this day a deadly environment without any real rules. This was for many reasons the only way it could be done. Societies that prayed for peace instead of maintaining large armies were swept away. As bad as it was, there were no WMD as potent as today's that make it probable that society as we know it will halt, when one of the imbroglios gets out of hand. It is no longer the viable long term. We must restructure the way we make order.
As a matter of fact, it was a Republican President under whose watch a very important modern initiative was started to reform the way global security should be defined and structured, by prodding the UN to modify its norms in a way that could put security and other global public goods in the public domain in which they belong.
Actually many societies that were peaceful lasted thousands of years.
WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR
The chant that never ends.
There are idiots that would chant like that. But it is the ones that often are at fault for wars beginning are those that think that wanting peace and security can make it so.
If there wasn't people chanting war the chances we would have spent almost all our time as a country in some sort of armed conflict is damn near non-existent.
I am not sure that the Republicans have put boots on the ground more often than Democrats. I think you might want to revise that allegation. You see, invasions can make sense and be the right decision. It is very similar to the SWAT teams.
Historically international security has had to be organized like Wild West Peace Making. It has been and is to this day a deadly environment without any real rules. This was for many reasons the only way it could be done. Societies that prayed for peace instead of maintaining large armies were swept away. As bad as it was, there were no WMD as potent as today's that make it probable that society as we know it will halt, when one of the imbroglios gets out of hand. It is no longer the viable long term. We must restructure the way we make order.
As a matter of fact, it was a Republican President under whose watch a very important modern initiative was started to reform the way global security should be defined and structured, by prodding the UN to modify its norms in a way that could put security and other global public goods in the public domain in which they belong.
He still doesn't really know what a neoconservative is, so he's right with the rest of the Twitterverse in its ignorance.
Ron Paul is right. The Democratic Party isn't perfect by any means, but I was strongly hoping that Republicans would not gain the senate and retain the house. For the exact reasons Ron Paul is tweeting about and more.
Perhaps you should revise giving me a strawman. I didn't frame it in a partisanship way, just what current realities dictate. Hell, McCain was talking about boots in North Korea! Obama uses drones, planes and federal SWAT teams (SEALS, Delta etc). But many that now control both houses of Congress want Marine infantry in just about every conflict going on today including Iraq, Syria and they would undoubtedly push for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities alongside Israel, who happens to be the right's favorite ally.
Ron Paul is right. The Democratic Party isn't perfect by any means, but I was strongly hoping that Republicans would not gain the senate and retain the house. For the exact reasons Ron Paul is tweeting about and more.
Let us hope, that we never regret not having destroyed Iran's nuclear threat.
'neo·con·ser·va·tive noun \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means'
Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
No, by definition, he knows EXACTLY what a Neocon is.