Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Kowalski

I Am Bradley Manning

171 posts in this topic

I've already stated that they are ad hominems.

Jeez, I forgot for a moment your authoritarian mindset.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unless you wish to classify Syria as a terrorist organisation? Then we might discuss whether the epithet is warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elimination of key personnel and key facilities perhaps.

I don't think anyone is in the mood for "pre-emptive" war that you advocate. That ship sailed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that would be the Syrian government that's fighting, as it would see it, against terrorist organisations (some of them associated with Al Q)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, I forgot for a moment your authoritarian mindset.

But not how to continually throw ad hominems, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unless you wish to classify Syria as a terrorist organisation?

Not particularly.

I think that illustrating Iran's willingness and ability to illegally supply WMD's to their tactical allies is sufficient for my purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geneva and NATO said some things, the UN says other things. For Americans, the Constitution says still other things. Squabbling about which law matters, and then the bombs and bullets show up to show which ones do, and might makes right once again and the "legal" cycle of violence continues. The wimped, whipped world playing follow the leader continues. The wars (the opportunities) continue. I'm not sure how innocently we've blundered into the foreign policy disasters we've created, but having the truth out in the open so that we're even capable of acknowleding them is a good first step. These incredibly brazen presumptions and acts of authority made by our government should be on the public stage for open debate among our people. What is so necessary about this punitive and authoritarian alternative of jailing Manning for life and hiding the truth from the people? Hiding the truth behind convenient legal cherry pickings doesn't convince me. The greater crime is hiding the truth from the people.

The US has been an offensive force in the world for far too long and we've bled and spent far too much already. We've been arming the hell out of the Middle East for two generations now and we've armed our share of shady, despicable and evil characters in our time. What rotgut hypocrisy to think that Iran can't do exactly what we've been doing for decades. Because we don't like them, we can write our hypocrisy down on legal paper saying that we're allowed to do something and they're not, snapping our foreign policy's backbone in two for having no principle whatever.

Might doesn't make the color of right. Hypocrisy doesn't either. I don't accept those ingredients that other cafeteria is cooking with. I'd throw it up before I'd eat it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore; Sanctions not withstanding...what could anyone really do 'to' Iran, militarily speaking, without erupting the entire region in a Hellish war?

Why would anyone? Does the US deserve to be attacked by foreign countries for its "terrorism" too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Western Military Defends Democracy, but we do not practice it. We are war fighters, our job is not pretty and we are willing to do terrible things to ensure that you can live the life you do.

And that right there is the problem I have with people in the military. If you guys weren't out there killin people I would still be living the exact same life I do. You need to realize that what you are doin is making the world LESS stable and a more violent place. You're all brainwashed into thinking you're securing the freedoms of your family and the people back home but all you are in reality is publicly funded mercenaries for corrupt politicians and empires who lie and deceive and do not care about you or the innocemt people who die and the hands of it military. Fortunately a lot of military personnel are coming to realize that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no idea what should be done. I don't see any good long term solutions that don't involve regime change, to be honest - and that's partly what started the whole mess in the first place. My best guess is that the Powers Who Be are sabotaging the nuclear program in hope that the Arab spring will finally roll into Iran before it's operational.

You mean they're hoping for another civil war, in Iran this time as well? so that will give them an excuse for Military Intervention (sorry, "Surgical Missile Strikes")?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean they're hoping for another civil war, in Iran this time as well? so that will give them an excuse for Military Intervention (sorry, "Surgical Missile Strikes")?

They won't get involved unless they absolutely have to. Much cleaner to get the CIA to fund and run a proxy war, than risk direct American assets.

If they can drag Iran down into Syria, though - then, from the CIA's perspective - that would be the perfect time for an Iranian civil war to kick off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think anyone is in the mood for "pre-emptive" war that you advocate. That ship sailed.

I'm just being practical. If a handful of Iranian scientists and politicians died, it would save thousands or tens of thousands of lives if a war breaks out. Not to mention infrastructure saved, and resources of food, fuel and machinery.

It doesn't have to be a war. It would be a "Surgical Strike", like was used to remove Osama bin Ladin. Only with a lot less proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the Iranians deserve to have their infrastructure, resources, food, fuel and machinery. And who do we think we are to say otherwise?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is in the mood for "pre-emptive" war that you advocate. That ship sailed.

Right, how could we possibly remember that Obama has been bombing five Muslim countries, three (arguably four) of which Bush didn't start pre-emptive wars on. It's foreign policy pixie dust! When Obama starts a preemptive war, somehow it's not preemptive war! Just say the ship has sailed, and whoa la, there it goes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the Iranians deserve to have their infrastructure, resources, food, fuel and machinery. And who do we think we are to say otherwise?

Exactly. Wouldn't eliminating some scientific leadership be better then destroying all that?

Perhaps we don't even need to kill these people. Perhaps we offer $10 million to the top 10 nuclear scientists and the same to the top 10 politicians involved? And homes in Lake Tahoe? Is economic warfare better or worse? The point would be that the people motivating the projects would be gone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signing the NNPT gives Iran rights to a nuclear program, same as us. In order to have that, you need scientists. By logical extension, yep, they have a right to their scientists too. Bureaucratic shenanigans playing match-maker and who has the rights to what don't interest me. If we're going to jam our way down someone else's throat, we best be doing our way ourselves or we have no credibility in the world. I think the chances of being retaliated against by terrorists rises in proportion to our hypocrisy. If we swear off WMDs and dismantle them all (something I wouldn't be willing to do if it was up to me) then we can stop the spread of them elsewhere without the necessary molehill of double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that right there is the problem I have with people in the military. If you guys weren't out there killin people I would still be living the exact same life I do. You need to realize that what you are doin is making the world LESS stable and a more violent place. You're all brainwashed into thinking you're securing the freedoms of your family and the people back home but all you are in reality is publicly funded mercenaries for corrupt politicians and empires who lie and deceive and do not care about you or the innocemt people who die and the hands of it military. Fortunately a lot of military personnel are coming to realize that.

Soldiers are not Robots who will do what you tel them. The good portion I the Western Military is very well educated. We are able and encouraged to think. We support hat we do because we see what to dont, the effects on the ground. Yes there are fire fights and ieds, but that's 5-10% of what we do in theatre, we build roads, irrigation, help farmers and villagers with projects.

We train to kill because if we didn't, no one would protect you as someone who wants your land comes ad takes it. You can say that you don't have enemies or that no one is capable of invading the US or Canada, or the UK. But in reality tat is be audit the Strobg Military Presence in each of those nations. If there wasn't a Military in either one then they wouldn't remain sovereign much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signing the NNPT gives Iran rights to a nuclear program, same as us. In order to have that, you need scientists. By logical extension, yep, they have a right to their scientists too. Bureaucratic shenanigans playing match-maker and who has the rights to what don't interest me. If we're going to jam our way down someone else's throat, we best be doing our way ourselves or we have no credibility in the world. I think the chances of being retaliated against by terrorists rises in proportion to our hypocrisy. If we swear off WMDs and dismantle them all (something I wouldn't be willing to do if it was up to me) then we can stop the spread of them elsewhere without the necessary molehill of double standards.

But what if the entire rest of the world is convinced they are not acting according to the NNPT? Do they then have the rights to continue that research? Because the last I read, the UN said they believed that Iran was breaking the NNPT.

The chances of retaliation are there. But if you beat up a bully enough, he leaves you alone. Or he tries to kill you, in which case you show him he can't kill you and beat him again, till he learns his lesson. The fact that the US and Iran would both be bullys in this situation is not lost on me, but one is my bully and would be acting (In theory) in the best interests of the global community.

I think dismantling our WMD is an excellent idea. We really only need a couple dozen to threaten rogue states with. Having hundreds or thousands just does not do what it used to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soldiers are not Robots who will do what you tel them. The good portion I the Western Military is very well educated. We are able and encouraged to think. We support hat we do because we see what to dont, the effects on the ground. Yes there are fire fights and ieds, but that's 5-10% of what we do in theatre, we build roads, irrigation, help farmers and villagers with projects.

We train to kill because if we didn't, no one would protect you as someone who wants your land comes ad takes it. You can say that you don't have enemies or that no one is capable of invading the US or Canada, or the UK. But in reality tat is be audit the Strobg Military Presence in each of those nations. If there wasn't a Military in either one then they wouldn't remain sovereign much longer.

Many militarys of the world are actually not that strong, because they depend on being allies with other nations that are strong. Japan for instance depends almost entirely on the US for national defense. Canada and the UK depend just as much on alliance (NATO) as they do on their own soldiers.

I do agree that modern US soldiers are not robots that would fire on their own people just because their Captain told them to. Those who subscribe to that idea are very naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what if the entire rest of the world is convinced they are not acting according to the NNPT? Do they then have the rights to continue that research? Because the last I read, the UN said they believed that Iran was breaking the NNPT.

The chances of retaliation are there. But if you beat up a bully enough, he leaves you alone. Or he tries to kill you, in which case you show him he can't kill you and beat him again, till he learns his lesson. The fact that the US and Iran would both be bullys in this situation is not lost on me, but one is my bully and would be acting (In theory) in the best interests of the global community.

Iran is no threat to us.

We've had our noses in Iran's internal affairs for generations now. The results of our policies all across the Middle East have been abysmal yet we always seem to accept the status quo and not question our policies, and from there it's always escalation and more escalation. The more we intervene over there the worse off we become over here. It's time to question what we're doing and start to creatively visualize an economical and morally-upright choice of minding our own business. When we're going in the wrong direction (hypocrisy, tyranny, violence, debt) it's time to turn around and go another way, not hit the gas pedal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what if the entire rest of the world is convinced they are not acting according to the NNPT? Do they then have the rights to continue that research? Because the last I read, the UN said they believed that Iran was breaking the NNPT.

The chances of retaliation are there. But if you beat up a bully enough, he leaves you alone. Or he tries to kill you, in which case you show him he can't kill you and beat him again, till he learns his lesson. The fact that the US and Iran would both be bullys in this situation is not lost on me, but one is my bully and would be acting (In theory) in the best interests of the global community.

I think dismantling our WMD is an excellent idea. We really only need a couple dozen to threaten rogue states with. Having hundreds or thousands just does not do what it used to.

Do you really believe that America has the best interests of the global community at heart?

And even if that was true, can America really be trusted to know what is the best interests of the global Community? I mean, look at Syria; even if we believe that Mr. O' is motivated by a genuine hunger for justice, what you can say at best is that he's rather naive, and seems to believe that the Rebels are the Good guys and all he has to do is help them (with "Surgical Strikes") and Evil be be deposed and peace and Truth will reign.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.