• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you go to war to defend the USA?

Would you go to war to defend the USA? (Americans only, please)


  • Total voters
    84
I did. I was there. Volunteered twice.

I don't see anyone standing in line to ship over. All the "God Bless America" is bull****.
 
To move this discussion along, I would like to introduce this quote:

"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles."
- George Jean Nathan.

Do you buy this, or not?
 
Here is another quote:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

John Stuart Mill
 
Guess Hitler shouldn't have named his own party National Socialism.
Regardless of what he named "his Party", Hitler was about as anti-Marx as you can get. Hitler's only "Party" was Hitler!

Mussolini modeled his brand of fascism from socialist, and existentialist principals. He was heavily influenced by Sorel, Nietzsche, Plato, and Pareto. He was also a member of the Italian Socialist Party.
That's why I said Mussolini would probably forgive your mistake. He started with Marx but didn't end up there.
 
"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

Mark Twain - "Chronicle of Young Satan"
 
You may say, that I am supplementing your comment.

As far as a surprise attacks on America go, I refer you to:

The New American Century .mpg

You mean brainwashing by the U.S, media?

"10. Myth: If it is not mentioned in the media, then it is not real. So the CIA’s policy of mass mind control and collective brainwashing can’t be real because the TV news channels and other media outlets never mention it.

Fact: To a large degree, the CIA and the mainstream media are one and the same. The U.S. government’s state media is not like the Chinese, Russian, Cuban, or Iranian state media, but it is still a state media. The only difference is there is the illusion in America that there is a separation between the private sphere of news coverage and the official sphere of power. But in reality, there is no separation. Officials in the highest positions of power in Washington manage the news in America, direct the national conversation, cover up uncomfortable truths, and set the official standards for public debate. They are totalitarian thugs who masquerade as defenders of freedom and providers of security."


Debunking 10 Myths About The CIA?s Psychological Occupation of The American Mind - BlackListedNews.com

Psh, that's small potatoes compared to their activities in the 60's and 70's. Unless you're detained in one of their black sites. MKULTRA/NAOMI/whatever the hell they call it now is alive and well.

Its way worse now than when the Church Committee was formed to investigate Cointelpro. You have Patriot Act wiretapping, Facebook spying, Twitter, infiltration of OWS, in addition to the Mockingbird and traditional techniques used in the 70's. A journalist on Democracy Now had his computer copied by DHS just for boarding a plane, plus the TSA crappola.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/TSA_...To_Keep_America_ Safe)_/18531/0/0/0/Y/M.html




Of course all the marxists are saying no...

Seeing pink elephants again? What Marxists?
 
Last edited:
I believe this is a hollow question, because most don't seem to grasp what "defending" it entails. If a person punches you in the face, you defend yourself and punch back. That's simple. That's easy. And that's what most believe is defending. Now imagine that same person, instead of hitting you, is robbing you and continually threatens the livelyhood of your family. Still in need for some defense?

It's easy to exact revenge after a Pearl Harbor (against Japanese) or after a 9/11 (against a few Muslims hiding under a government) by defending the USA. But the American way of life, with all its opportuntity and prosperity, isn't defended by such an easy definition. Most Americans couldn't understand why a war in Europe was their problem. Most Americans don't understand why a globe covered in Soviet influence was ther problem. Hell, most Americans are so caught up in their deluded ideas that they can't understand why oil matters. Most Americans don't know their own history. Ask yourself when American freedom was last actually defended and then realize why we go to war.

Defending the USA from one war to the next has always been far more important than the two instances where we demanded revenge for being attacked. In fact, we have never gone to war with anybody that didn't involve securing the wider region as the goal. Think about it. Why would we seek to secure and stabilize regions? Because the defense of the USA has always been about the health of foreign regions.
 
I believe this is a hollow question, because most don't seem to grasp what "defending" it entails. If a person punches you in the face, you defend yourself and punch back. That's simple. That's easy. And that's what most believe is defending. Now imagine that same person, instead of hitting you, is robbing you and continually threatens the livelyhood of your family. Still in need for some defense?

It's easy to exact revenge after a Pearl Harbor (against Japanese) or after a 9/11 (against a few Muslims hiding under a government) by defending the USA. But the American way of life, with all its opportuntity and prosperity, isn't defended by such an easy definition. Most Americans couldn't understand why a war in Europe was their problem. Most Americans don't understand why a globe covered in Soviet influence was ther problem. Hell, most Americans are so caught up in their deluded ideas that they can't understand why oil matters. Most Americans don't know their own history. Ask yourself when American freedom was last actually defended and then realize why we go to war.

Defending the USA from one war to the next has always been far more important than the two instances where we demanded revenge for being attacked. In fact, we have never gone to war with anybody that didn't involve securing the wider region as the goal. Think about it. Why would we seek to secure and stabilize regions? Because the defense of the USA has always been about the health of foreign regions.

I actually understand your point. But it does mean we argue that we do kill for oil. That we invade countries and subject innocent people to aggression and the consequences of that aggression. Doing so for this reason makes us what our enmies paint us to be. Having a moral center, core values, is difficult. A mob likely doesn't have those things. But a people should.

And if I believe our way was superior to communism, wouldn't I have to believe that it would win in the end? If not, then why would I prefer it?

Look, to some degree there is truth in what you argue, but there has to be a line. Because if there is no line, then our enemy has no line, and we should argue they shouldn;t have a line. I don't think the world can ultimately survive the kind of thinking you support here. No, your not alone. And it is more valid than most argue. But that is what makes me want to oppose it more. It logically leads us down a role I would rather not travel. I wouldrather be a moral people with less, than rich with innocent blood covering those riches.
 
Its way worse now than when the Church Committee was formed to investigate Cointelpro. You have Patriot Act wiretapping, Facebook spying, Twitter, infiltration of OWS, in addition to the Mockingbird and traditional techniques used in the 70's. A journalist on Democracy Now had his computer copied by DHS just for boarding a plane, plus the TSA crappola.

In the 70's, such actions weren't really necessary. With the emergence of technological advancements, and attitudes that go against maintaining the status quo, of course the government is going to do what it deems necessary to maintain order. In the days of Vietnam, all the US had to worry about were hippies, the USSR, and small clusters of extremists and radicals. The populace as a whole was still relatively easy to keep in order. There's relatively no order now that our industry has been reduced significantly, the populace is ideologically polarized, our economy is ****, as is the farce we call a Congress. If they can't make us feel like they can keep us safe, they'll use intimidation to keep things running on time.

Seeing pink elephants again?
Just making an observation.
 
Its way worse now than when the Church Committee was formed to investigate Cointelpro. You have Patriot Act wiretapping, Facebook spying, Twitter, infiltration of OWS, in addition to the Mockingbird and traditional techniques used in the 70's. A journalist on Democracy Now had his computer copied by DHS just for boarding a plane, plus the TSA crappola.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/TSA_...To_Keep_America_ Safe)_/18531/0/0/0/Y/M.html






Seeing pink elephants again? What Marxists?


In the 70's, such actions weren't really necessary. With the emergence of technological advancements, and attitudes that go against maintaining the status quo, of course the government is going to do what it deems necessary to maintain order. In the days of Vietnam, all the US had to worry about were hippies, the USSR, and small clusters of extremists and radicals. The populace as a whole was still relatively easy to keep in order. There's relatively no order now that our industry has been reduced significantly, the populace is ideologically polarized, our economy is ****, as is the farce we call a Congress. If they can't make us feel like they can keep us safe, they'll use intimidation to keep things running on time. Just making an observation.


Your observation, its inaccurate. Even then, they wiretapped, had police infiltrate peaceful protests to start act acts of violence the authorities could "clamp down" on, Mockingbird everywhere in the press, public derision of activists (remember Archie Bunker?) and Hollywood actors, they reinforce the same talking points on that farcical Fox or CNN, (the CIA news network) or John Wayne war propaganda movies. Even the movies are govmnt stenography to purge facts down the memory hole like Eastwoods J. Edgar or the idiotic biopics. Even Oliver Stone took it way easy on Nixon and Bush because thegovmnt owned press attacked his JFK movie, even though it was wholly accurate. The movies are completely sterile of social content with few exceptions, "Rendition"or Michael Moore who is scoffed at, while the industry and studios are themselves a snakepit of censorship, coercion, and political control.
 
Last edited:
Your observation, its inaccurate. Even then, they wiretapped, had police infiltrate peaceful protests to start act acts of violence the authorities could "clamp down" on, Mockingbird everywhere in the press, public derision of activists (remember Archie Bunker?) and Hollywood actors, they reinforce the same talking points on that farcical Fox or CNN, (the CIA news network) or John Wayne war propaganda movies. Even the movies are govmnt stenography to purge facts down the memory hole like Eastwoods J. Edgar or the idiotic biopics. Even Oliver Stone took it way easy on Nixon and Bush because thegovmnt owned press attacked his JFK movie, even though it was wholly accurate. The movies are completely sterile of social content with few exceptions, "Rendition"or Michael Moore who is scoffed at, while the industry and studios are themselves a snakepit of censorship, coercion, and political control.

So basically the only thing that changed was technology.
 
why not, alberto?

Where to begin? I've spent the last half hour typing a response to your question only to repeatedly delete what I've written while I gather my thoughts. I am pseudo-historian compared to the men and women against which I measure myself.

I grew up and became a man in an era of American history much like Rome during the reigns of the Five Good Emperors who governed the Empire consecutively for a period of about 90 years in the first and second centuries of the Common Era. This was the heighth of Empire. It was quite literally the best of times for a the first iteration of Western Civilization. For some it was a Golden Age. Imo that span of time was like the American Era of world history from 1941 to 2001. Others would say the era lasted from 1945 to 1973.

I was an American patriot who loved a land so dearly that my feelings crossed into nationalism and even chauvinism. I say this to give you perspective on the transformation of my world view.

In 2004 I began to understand that I had been willfully blind in many ways for almost twenty years. But then, I was in good company.

I knew denial and anger and the other stages of grief for a beloved land. Then for my own well being I began to detach myself emotionally from the fate of that land. Rome devolved, split up, and became something else while still calling itself Roman.

America was a polity the creation of which was based on an idea. What becomes of that polity when the idea dies?

I think I now understand how the Russian nobility must have felt around the time of the Russo-Japanese War when the Russian defeat revealed a hollow empire. Similarly, I think I know how some members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union must have felt in the mid-1980s when they realized that they had spent seventy years on the road to no where. Neither the Russian nobility nor the Soviet intelligentsia could save what they loved.

The land that I loved is gone. And I am aware that the past can never truly be restored.

I am still in love, but now I am in love with the idea on which the polity was originally based. Individual liberty. This idea was born in Classical Greece, survived for almost 450 years in the form of the Roman Republic, and appeared again in the Venetian Republic of the Renaissance.

That idea was refined and distilled during the European Enlightenment by men like Locke, Montesquieu, and Rosseau. The idea became incarnate again with the birth of America and its Constitution. It spread across a continent, expanded to other races and women, and spread through the world.

The idea is now being rolled back slowly with the end of the American Era of the Western Epoch of history. But the idea won't ever die. It will appear again in some unknown polity among an unknown people.

Am I too pessimistic? Perhaps, but detachment breeds objectivity. Some will say that nothing remains the same. This is true. There is a tide in the affairs of men and women to paraphrase the Bard. And I have seen this all before in a book by Edward Gibbon.
 
America was a polity the creation of which was based on an idea. What becomes of that polity when the idea dies?

I didn't know the idea has died. It's true that big government and (banker's) socialism have come way ahead in America to strangle personal liberty but it doesn't have to be that way anyway. :)
 
I wonder what kind of an overlap you'd get of a) the people in this thread who express some degree of unwillingness to defend the country, and b) the people who would say that the rich should pay more in taxes because they owe the country for their blessings.

I suspect it would be rather large.
 
I wonder what kind of an overlap you'd get of a) the people in this thread who express some degree of unwillingness to defend the country, and b) the people who would say that the rich should pay more in taxes because they owe the country for their blessings.

I suspect it would be rather large.

American billionares don't owe america for their blessings... they owe... uh... soul of zombie reagan :) So you pledge allegiance to the rich over the majority of your countrymen... thanks. Pass it on.
 
Last edited:
American billionares don't owe america for their blessings... they owe... uh... soul of zombie reagan :) So you pledge allegiance to the rich over the majority of your countrymen... thanks. Pass it on.

Gotta love it when a point sails completely over someone's head. :lol:
 
Gotta love it when a point sails completely over someone's head. :lol:

Umm... I was trying to bring up the point to you that you believe the rich don't owe their country for their wealth.
Perhaps we should just blast them with a cannon when they fly to swissyland to hide their cash.
Then who would you worship?
 
Your question is dim. Would you care to add a condition or cause to the hypothetical war?
 
Umm... I was trying to bring up the point to you that you believe the rich don't owe their country for their wealth.

I know you thought that was my point, thus my comment about the ACTUAL point sailing clean over your head. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom