America's Founding Fathers on War - They Weren't Neocon Warmongers

[Erudite_Hillbilly]

There is a difference between a "reason" and a "justification."

In the context of this thread, it's fair to say that Truth-Bringer is attempting to justify terrorists attacks. He said that we needed to remove the "cause" why we were attacked.

 

[vyo476]

In the context of this thread, it's fair to say that Truth-Bringer is attempting to justify terrorists attacks. He said that we needed to remove the "cause" why we were attacked.

Firstly, are you sure we're discussing the right thread? This one's about the Founding Fathers' views on warfare, Truth-Bringer has another thread about the causes of Islamic terrorism.

Secondly, Truth-Bringer is a "she." Just fair warning.

Thirdly, addressing your point: We study the "causes" of any number of unjustifiable things. Nazism is a perfect example. Many things caused the rise of Nazism. These are reasons - not justifications. None of us are suggesting that we go pat a bunch of terrorists on the back and say "Well done"; people like Osama bin Laden still need to be held accountable for what they've done here. His methods were unreconilable; his reasons, though, are something we should give thought to.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Hang on jackass,

I'm not a Democrat.

I have to catch my breath I'm so tired from "running from the truth".

I'll bet. You're probably exhausted.

How many decades do you want to go back with your reed-thin attempts to draw cause and effect in order justify terrorists acts.

There is no justification for murder. But one can understand how an uneducated person can be driven to murder.

As far as going back, I don't have to go back at all. Washington is currently funding the regime in Saudi Arabia, and they are currently oppressing their people.

 

[Libsmasher]

I wish you guys would stop with your neverending fearmongering. First of all, we're no safer against terrorist attacks than we were eight years ago.

Manifestly contradicted by the known facts. Any more 9/11's in the last seven years? Nooooooooooooo

Bush has done nothing to secure the border, and hasn't secured Iraq or Afghanistan.

There is never any 100% security ANYWHERE, but security has greatly improved.

Secondly, so that would be first shot in a war? Who would we go to war against after the attack? Another country that didn't attack us? No nation state wants a war with us.

And never will? You're a mindreader as well as a fortune teller?

Even if a nation state did try to invade and occupy us, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING.

We're failing only in the parallel universe imagined by appeasers.

And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

You're fighting the last war, and don't get it at all. Nobody is ineterested in occupying the US, but rather doing great damage.

And we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth.

Sure helped on 9-11 - didn't it?

If we want to stop terrorism, we first need to remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S. Then the terrorists will have no reason to come into our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Sorry, I and many other americans refuse to follow Osama's advice and convert to islam. And you are behind the curve - europe has recently gotten new warnings from al qaeda that it's next.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Manifestly contradicted by the known facts. Any more 9/11's in the last seven years? Nooooooooooooo

Proves nothing. By your "reasoning" we were equally safe every year prior to 9/11. No terrorist attacks in the first 225 years of the country. Therefore we were safer then. Why did the government make us less safe? What exactly did they do to make us less safe? I've already explained that.

There is never any 100% security ANYWHERE, but security has greatly improved.

B.S. They're still telling everyone they expect more attacks. They have not secured the border because Bush doesn't want to. He wants amnesty for illegals.

And never will?

No. And NEVER will, not unless they want to be destroyed by nuclear weapons.

We're failing only in the parallel universe imagined by appeasers.

The U.S. government is failing in its objectives. And the cost is astronomical. They will NEVER secure Iraq to the point that it's an independent democracy with zero U.S. intervention, and I will wager you $1,000 - each of us placing that amount in an internet escrow account if you want to take that bet.

You're fighting the last war,

ROTFL. Please tell me you're not trying to say this is armagedden.

and don't get it at all. Nobody is ineterested in occupying the US, but rather doing great damage.

It's you that don't get it all. They are attacking us for specific reasons. Not just because they blindly hate the U.S. for its wealth and freedom. You're lying, and all of the Neocons are liars.

Sure helped on 9-11 - didn't it?

No, because we weren't attacked by a nation state. What also didn't help is your fool of a President, master Bush, ignoring warnings about the attack when he had a report on his desk two months before titled "Al Qaeda determined to strike in the U.S." What an incompetent fool your master Bush is.

Sorry, I and many other americans refuse to follow Osama's advice and convert to islam.

No worries. If we left the region, history proves the Sunnis and Shiites will fight each other. They only unite when they have a common enemy in their territory. I say we leave and let them kill each other. If you want to stay, get your lazy, cowardly butt in the military and go over there. Or is the war only cool if other people have to do the fighting and dying?

And you are behind the curve - europe has recently gotten new warnings from al qaeda that it's next.

Al Qaeda is incapable of conquering or occupying any nation state. They're a small group of criminals, and we should back the formation of a new international police force - represented with an equal number of members from all nations - to deal with criminals like this.

 

[Libsmasher]

Proves nothing. By your "reasoning" we were equally safe every year prior to 9/11. No terrorist attacks in the first 225 years of the country.

Uhhhhh, that was before the rise of the islamofascists.

Therefore we were safer then. Why did the government make us less safe? What exactly did they do to make us less safe? I've already explained that.

I don't accept your premise, and saying that we haven't been attacked doesn't mean our security has improved is a contradiction in terms. The US, working with allies, has destroyed al qaeda infrasructure all over the world.

B.S. They're still telling everyone they expect more attacks. They have not secured the border because Bush doesn't want to. He wants amnesty for illegals.

You are right about the illegal aliens, but that is a separate issue - they are economic refugees, and of course their greatest support is in the democrat party.

No. And NEVER will, not unless they want to be destroyed by nuclear weapons.

Sorry, I don't credit you with an ability to foretell the future with certainty, and you seem unable to grasp the limited utility of nukes.

The U.S. government is failing in its objectives.

You can repeat the appeaser mantra over and over, but that doesn't make it so.

And the cost is astronomical.

ALL wars are expensive - that can't be used as an argument against a particular war.

They will NEVER secure Iraq to the point that it's an independent democracy with zero U.S. intervention, and I will wager you $1,000 - each of us placing that amount in an internet escrow account if you want to take that bet.

You want to make a bet based on "never"?? That has us waiting for infinite time to see who wins.

ROTFL. Please tell me you're not trying to say this is armagedden.

Whaaaaat?????

It's you that don't get it all. They are attacking us for specific reasons. Not just because they blindly hate the U.S. for its wealth and freedom. You're lying, and all of the Neocons are liars.

The main reasons are two:

- Support for israel

- The humilation of the arabs during the last century. The US has had little to do with that, and in fact helped Osama free afghanistan from the soviets. This stuff began with the allied dismemberment of the middle east portions of the Ottoman empire after WWI, and handing it over to the french and british. Then followed their failed experiments with socialism, and pan-arabic dictators like Saddam Hussein - all of which has left them in poverty and 15th century conditions. From all this, people like Osama developed a generalized hatred of the west, but the US hasn't done much more than make most of them billionaires by buying their oil at cartel prices.

No, because we weren't attacked by a nation state.

That's right, glad you get it, and future attacks, if we let down security, will be of the same kind - so you ranting about our "nukes" is neither here nor there.

What also didn't help is your fool of a President, master Bush, ignoring warnings about the attack when he had a report on his desk two months before titled "Al Qaeda determined to strike in the U.S." What an incompetent fool your master Bush is.

The US gets tons of such reports that prove to be false all the time. And you appeasers on the one hand trumpet that intelligence estimate, on the other hand you condemn the determination of WMDs from the same CIA - Bush is supposed to know which one to pick and chose???

No worries. If we left the region, history proves the Sunnis and Shiites will fight each other. They only unite when they have a common enemy in their territory. I say we leave and let them kill each other. If you want to stay, get your lazy, cowardly butt in the military and go over there. Or is the war only cool if other people have to do the fighting and dying?

The people who are doing the fighting VOLUNTEERED for it. Your prattle about the US being the common enemy is a silly oversimplification of what's happening. The US facilitated the democratic election of an iraqi government that is mostly shiite, after they had long been oppressed by the sunnis, and you think they (other than the usual minority of islamic wackos) HATE us for that? You aren't making sense.

Al Qaeda is incapable of conquering or occupying any nation state. They're a small group of criminals, and we should back the formation of a new international police force - represented with an equal number of members from all nations - to deal with criminals like this.

Absolute, total, pure 112% BS - this "al qaeda are just criminals" mentality, originating with the complacent Bill Clinton administration, is what resulted in the worst attack on the US mainland since the War of 1812. This is war, nothing else.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

If I want to listen to Neocon propaganda, I'll just turn on the Rush Limbaugh show.

All of you Neocons have refused to address the specifics in the link I provided. If he's given incorrect information, THEN POINT OUT SPECIFICALLY WHERE HE IS IN ERROR.

If you want to defend the Zionists in Israel, then go enlist in the military and get over there and fight for them.

I'll tell you right now, it's not the job of the American soldier to die for Israel, and it's not the job of the American taxpayer to pay for their national defense.

The new Nazis are the Zio-Nazis. And let's end with a quote from an old Nazi:

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Hermann Goering, Hitler's second in command

 

[YouMustBeJoking]

Our Founders however..created a Republic whereupon a President cannot simply start a war...Congressional authorization required as was given in both current wars today.

What they really would do is turn to Congress and ask where any accountability lies and then laugh their collective arses off when they see the two clown circus that's being called the Democratic Party Primary.

 

[Libsmasher]

If I want to listen to Neocon propaganda, I'll just turn on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Ah - don't want to try to debate the points I made? Can't blame you.

All of you Neocons have refused to address the specifics in the link I provided. If he's given incorrect information, THEN POINT OUT SPECIFICALLY WHERE HE IS IN ERROR.

Tell ya what - YOU make arguments instead of pointing people to long appeaser propaganda pages. I read as far as the simple-minded "US helps dictators" crapola, the standard defamation-for-morons that pulls facts out of context from the titanic 40 year cold war struggle between the US and the soviet union and its proxies.

If you want to defend the Zionists in Israel, then go enlist in the military and get over there and fight for them.

Yaaa yaaaa - I've heard this mantra from you before. Here, let me try: Don't like the price of food? Become a farmer. Don'tlike the price of oil? Dig your own well.

I'll tell you right now, it's not the job of the American soldier to die for Israel, and it's not the job of the American taxpayer to pay for their national defense.

The job of the american soldier is to go where and do what they're told. It's a VOLUNTEER army - nobody ever said they could pick and choose what orders to follow.

The new Nazis are the Zio-Nazis. And let's end with a quote from an old Nazi:

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Hermann Goering, Hitler's second in command

Uh, Hitler's army was supported by conscription - ours is VOLUNTEER.

 

[mark964]

volunteer...yeah right...free college education or $2000 cash and and ipod...6 months later...iraq

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Ah - don't want to try to debate the points I made?

It is you who are refusing to debate my points. Again, I've got better things to do than listen to propaganda.

You Bush worshippers are delusional. Your master doesn't want to catch Bin Laden. He's already has his chance to do that, and passed:

"Mid-November 2001: Afghan Politician Says US Policy Prevented Bin Laden Capture

Ismail Khan. [Source: US Navy]Independent warlord Ismail Khan’s troops and other Northern Alliance fighters are reportedly ready to take back Pashtun areas from Taliban control at this time. Khan, former and future governor of Herat province and one of Afghanistan’s most successful militia leaders, later maintains that “we could have captured all the Taliban and the al-Qaeda groups. We could have arrested Osama bin Laden with all of his supporters.” [USA Today, 1/2/2002] However, according to Khan, his forces hold back at the request of the US, who allegedly do not want the non-Pashtun Northern Alliance to conquer Pashtun areas. (SO WE CAN KILL THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS AND TAKE TERRITORY IN IRAQ, BUT WE CAN'T DARE DO THIS IN PASHTUN?????......YEAH RIGHT. DRY THAT ONE OUT AND YOU CAN FERTILIZE THE LAWN WITH IT.)

British newspapers at the time report bin Laden is surrounded in a 30-mile area, but the conquest of Kandahar takes weeks without the Northern Alliance (see November 25, 2001). However, more reliable reports place bin Laden near Tora Bora by mid-November (see November 13, 2001). [CNN, 11/18/2001]"

Link

 

[Jeugenen]

MC-CAIN’S LAST DATE WITH THE REAGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY


McCain’s ideological support, like Bush’s, comes from Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs, not Reagan Conservatives nor Kennedy Liberals. These supporters have the same Neo-Marxist roots, which originated over 60 years ago, when millions of defeated Marxist immigrants from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were admitted by America, as desperate persecuted refugees; after all of the European nations refused to take them.


By the McCarthy Era, many of these pathetic refugees had gotten good government positions; and, by way of showing their deep gratitude to the American People, they systematically corrupted the government and endangered national security, by working as spies for Marxist Russia. The most notorious of these spies, the Rosenbergs, were executed for treason. This had the intended beneficial effect of stopping most of the dangerous spying; but it had the unintended consequence of causing these Marxist refugees to seek social and economic power by pretentiously assimilating into the Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrat parties; where they quickly mutated into the Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals, with insidious ideological opposition to traditional Christian culture and Constitutional principles. The result of the subversive influence by these virulent Crypto-Neo-Marxists in the government, schools, news media and entertainment media was the increasingly intolerably cultural degeneration that has led up to the American Cultural War.


Podhoretz Neo-Con and Leiberman Neo-Lib ideology notoriously instills subversive contempt for patriotism, defensive war, historical accuracy, Christian culture, and Constitutional rule, United Nations resolutions, and Conservative Reagan Republicans and Liberal Kennedy Democrats.


All of this contempt is transparently motivated by a dogmatic belief in gaining an advantage by insubordination to the practices of national religious and governmental traditions, which grant the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These Crypto-Neo-Marxists, like their failed Marxists predecessors, imagine that they can somehow create their own new superior civilization, if they first destroy the traditional allegiance to the nuclear family, Christianity, nationalism, and the Constitution.


Israel, which these Marxists refugees have had all to themselves for 60 years, to do their utopian social engineering, in their own artificially created state, is notoriously poorly governed and heavily subsidized by the Diaspora; and the People of Israel, once the most widely pitied in the World, have come to justly earn the distinction of now being the most universally despised, condemned, and threatened with annihilation.


In this crucial 2008 presidential battle of the American Cultural War shall the Reagan Conservatives and the Kennedy Liberals finally combine forces against these desperately united Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs supporting Insane McCain; or shall they continue to suffer ideological corruption of their Republican and Democrat parties, subversion of their traditional Christian culture and Constitutional rule, pernicious governmental strife, and the illegal and un-patriotic sacrifice of the wealth and blood of the American People to sole benefit of Israel?


With Leiberman Neo-Lib Princess Hillary burnt at stake by the Kennedy Liberal Democratic Party, shall Podhoretz Neo-Con McCain have his final date for the presidency, or for the Reagan Conservative Republican firing squad?


Google: “Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; “Evans Blacklisted by History: Untold Story of Joe McCarthy”; “Wall Street Journal McCain-Feingold”; Stricherz Why the Democrats are Blue; “Human Events Ron Paul Interview”; McClelland "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"; McCain Keating Five; Abramoff Israel McCain.