we have these things called "aircraft carriers"

[redbreegull]

your critical thinking is the worst

[redbreegull]

like I already said, you are making yourself feel less morally culpable in a bad political system, but other than that, voting third party is a futile way of electing a third party candidate.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

like I already said, you are making yourself feel less morally culpable in a bad political system

What's wrong with wanting to distance myself from supporting leaders like Obama who commits acts of terrorism on innocent people? Yeah, it really bothers me. Just because these people are in another country doesn't make their existence any less than yours or mine. Personally, I'm sick to death of these endless wars. Nothing is ever going to change as long as there are people with attitudes like yours. I don't mind being mocked about this. The older I get, the more I understand how fragile life is. Especially when I lost my own daughter years ago. When I see the pain on the faces of these mothers and fathers over there.... because their child has been blown up into pieces.... I get that pain. I wish it on no one.

[TuralyonW3]

I just want to know why you're choosing Johnson over Stein. Are you just more of a hardcore libertarian than progressive? Stein is even more anti-war than Johnson.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Starla

What's wrong with wanting to distance myself from supporting leaders like Obama who commits acts of terrorism on innocent people? Yeah, it really bothers me. Just because these people are in another country doesn't make their existence any less than yours or mine. Personally, I'm sick to death of these endless wars. Nothing is ever going to change as long as there are people with attitudes like yours. I don't mind being mocked about this. The older I get, the more I understand how fragile life is. Especially when I lost my own daughter years ago. When I see the pain on the faces of these mothers and fathers over there.... because their child has been blown up into pieces.... I get that pain. I wish it on no one.

1) explain how it is terrorism? it's political/military assassination with plenty of collateral damage but that doesn't equal terrorism

2) you still have yet to explain how voting third party is changing the system except that you seem to be stick on this bit of magical thinking that freeing your mind will end all wars maaaaan

3) your inability to understand that I am against violence but still see Obama as the best viable candidate just makes me think that you are not able to think outside extremes and black and white concepts

[Starla]

I think Jill and Gary are both great (don't care for Cheri Honkala). I like that Gary has more experience as a Gov. and I like how he would handle things fiscally. She is more anti war than he is, but I think Gary is more realistic in dealing with national security issues and foreign policy. He is also for wars being approved through congress.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

1) explain how it is terrorism? it's political/military assassination with plenty of collateral damage but that doesn't equal terrorism

If they sent a drone here and blew up your house and family, it would be called terrorism. It's the same thing.

2) you still have yet to explain how voting third party is changing the system except that you seem to be stick on this bit of magical thinking that freeing your mind will end all wars maaaaan

I've already explained why...

3) your inability to understand that I am against violence but still see Obama as the best viable candidate just makes me think that you are not able to think outside extremes and black and white concepts

He's not. Moving along now...

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Starla

If they sent a drone here and blew up your house and family, it would be called terrorism. It's the same thing.



I've already explained why...



He's not. Moving along now...

1) no, terrorism does not equal civilian casualties. Terrorism is a term for a specific tactic used to achieve a military goal. The drones target combatants for political assassination. Not the same thing as terrorism. No one in the Obama Administration is under the impression they are going to scare the Taliban into submission.

2)no, you haven't explained why. Look at the Perot example. Even if you amass a huge number of people to vote for a third party candidate, it is still impossible for said candidate to gain ANY electoral votes. You need to abolish the EC if you want third parties to be viable. I'm sure it's peachier to believe you are making a big statement with your protest vote though

3)so the possibilities are that one, you think Romney would end the drone strikes, or two, you think civil rights, foreign policy, and the economy don't matter. Which is it?

[hnibos]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

The optimal way is to stop militarily interfering in Islamic countries and get all US troops off the Arabian peninsula while gently encouraging political reform in extremist countries

I thought it was voting for Gary Johnson.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

The optimal way is to stop militarily interfering in Islamic countries and get all US troops off the Arabian peninsula while gently encouraging political reform in extremist countries

So getting out will prevent attacks.

Worked really well to prevent 9/11.

[duovamp]

Gently encouraging.


Please don't murder women who drive or show their faces. Please.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

1) no, terrorism does not equal civilian casualties. Terrorism is a term for a specific tactic used to achieve a military goal. The drones target combatants for political assassination. Not the same thing as terrorism. No one in the Obama Administration is under the impression they are going to scare the Taliban into submission.

So, if the Pakistani's could send drones over to the U.S. for covert operations to kill people in our govt, and they just so happened to bomb your house and kill your entire family, will you call it a "military goal"? Did you watch the video I posted? We kill more innocent people than we do terrorists. And with the way the U.S. defines who a terrorist is now, I am wondering exactly who we are after and what they have done in order to be murdered without a chance to defend themselves.

Of course we're not going to scare the Taliban into submission, all we are going to do is keep murdering their families, and breed more hate for the U.S. and create more terrorists who hate the U.S.

Another thing that astonishes me is that you support someone who signed a bill that gives our president the right to issue an executive order to assassinate any American in a foreign country without a trial if they are suspicious or involved in terrorist activity. Even Saddam Hussein got a trial.

You need to abolish the EC if you want third parties to be viable. I'm sure it's peachier to believe you are making a big statement with your protest vote though

Um yeah. You think I don't understand that? But that's not going to stop me from voting for who I think the best candidate is. If you think I'm making a big statement, then okay... lol I'm actually making a tiny one.

3)so the possibilities are that one, you think Romney would end the drone strikes, or two, you think civil rights, foreign policy, and the economy don't matter. Which is it?

[Starla]

Originally Posted by duovamp

So getting out will prevent attacks.

Worked really well to prevent 9/11.

Maybe Bush should have paid attention to those memos?

If we don't want to see another 9/11, we need to stop murdering innocent people over there.

Originally Posted by duovamp

Gently encouraging.


Please don't murder women who drive or show their faces. Please.

Women are beaten or murdered in the U.S. all of the time by their abusers .... what of that? We have religions in this country that restrict women from doing many things as well, who also cover their heads according to their doctrines.

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by Starla

We kill more innocent people than we do terrorists.

the video says 800 civilians died and then goes onto say 3000 something people died in total. if thats true only a third of 'innocent' people died ... not that thats a good thing but if their numbers are right we arent killing more innocents than 'terrorists' or warlords or whatever you want to call them

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Starla

Maybe Bush should have paid attention to those memos?

If we don't want to see another 9/11, we need to stop murdering innocent people over there.



Women are beaten or murdered in the U.S. all of the time by their abusers .... what of that? We have religions in this country that restrict women from doing many things as well, who also cover their heads according to their doctrines.

lol nice troll comparison. The difference is our society condemns these acts and our government does not embrace them, nor does it enact laws to uphold violence against women.

So if W would've read his memos, there would be no plot or will for the 9/11 attacks? Sorry but people from this region want to destroy the great evil US for reasons way beyond what the US military did in the past. Removing US presence from anywhere in the world disrupts the hegemonic stability that keeps the US on top and allows other countries to profit from the worldwide order it upholds.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by duovamp

So getting out will prevent attacks.

Worked really well to prevent 9/11.

9/11 was carried out by a man whose fatwa says ALL AMERICANS OFF ARABIAN PENINSULA. That was Osama bin Laden's goal. Are you this ignorant or trolling? Sunni terrorism is largely the product of America and the West abusing and taking advantage of the Muslim world through colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism for the last two centuries. You don't blow yourself up unless you are in a situation where you feel you have no other recourse against your oppressors.

Originally Posted by Starla

So, if the Pakistani's could send drones over to the U.S. for covert operations to kill people in our govt, and they just so happened to bomb your house and kill your entire family, will you call it a "military goal"? Did you watch the video I posted? We kill more innocent people than we do terrorists. And with the way the U.S. defines who a terrorist is now, I am wondering exactly who we are after and what they have done in order to be murdered without a chance to defend themselves.

it's terrorism if they come over and attack the civilian populace to try and achieve a military goal by inducing fear in the populace. If they attack my house because my father is a military commander and they just don't mind killing some civilians to remove him from existence, that is not terrorism.

Of course we're not going to scare the Taliban into submission, all we are going to do is keep murdering their families, and breed more hate for the U.S. and create more terrorists who hate the U.S.

right, so drone strikes are not terrorism

Another thing that astonishes me is that you support someone who signed a bill that gives our president the right to issue an executive order to assassinate any American in a foreign country without a trial if they are suspicious or involved in terrorist activity. Even Saddam Hussein got a trial.

I don't condone Obama's expansion of the Bush defense policies (for the hundredth time). Does not change the fact that Romney would be just as bad if not worse, and Obama is a superior candidate in every other venue. Also does not change the fact that even if Gary Johnson won the election, I think you are credulous to believe he would act any differently either. I think you are not taking into account how far to the right the attitudes about defense tactics have gone in this country because of Bush. To the huge majority of voters, this is not even a discussable issue, it's already been settled. Your core problem is with the people around you, not Barack Obama. If you put a politician into office, that politician is going to recognize the bounds of his /her reality that cannot be transgressed without committing political suicide.

Um yeah. You think I don't understand that? But that's not going to stop me from voting for who I think the best candidate is. If you think I'm making a big statement, then okay... lol I'm actually making a tiny one.

Again, you are living in la la land. You still have not been able to rationalize how voting third party is doing anything constructive.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Sorry but people from this region want to destroy the great evil US for reasons way beyond what the US military did in the past. Removing US presence from anywhere in the world disrupts the hegemonic stability that keeps the US on top and allows other countries to profit from the worldwide order it upholds.

this is ignorant. they don't even really want to destroy the US. If you look at the rhetoric they use, it's full of crazy fire and brimstone type bullshit, but if you examine a text which actually means something, like bin Laden's fatwa, you will come to understand that groups like al-Qaeda are not mindless religious zombie cults. They have specific military goals, and terrorism is a tactic used to achieve those goals. Destroying the USA is not one of those goals.

They want to strike the USA precisely because of what the US and the West have done to their societies. There is nothing innate in Islam which just mathematically dooms it to never coexist peacefully with democracy or with the West. That's fucking stupid, and it's reductive, and it allows people to be angry at the terrorists without feeling morally responsible for creating the beast.

[duovamp]

Ignorance is suggesting America need mere gentle persuasion to win the hearts of religious fanatics in the Middle East. We can't even get American religious fanatics to stop ruining society here. You must be truly, truly retarded.

Hey guys, change your ways please and stop believing in your religion as you have for the last thousand years. We don't have any way of threatening you or rewarding you though because we refuse to use military and we depend on you for fuel. Thanksies!

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Ignorance is suggesting America need mere gentle persuasion to win the hearts of religious fanatics in the Middle East. We can't even get American religious fanatics to stop ruining society here. You must be truly, truly retarded.

Hey guys, change your ways please and stop believing in your religion as you have for the last thousand years. We don't have any way of threatening you or rewarding you though because we refuse to use military and we depend on you for fuel. Thanksies!

has never studied international relations or terrorism

[redbreegull]

I mean you literally do not know what the fuck you are talking about, terrorism has nothing to do with "believing in your religion as you have for the last thousand years," you fucking ditz. Wahhabism is only a few hundred years old and the concept of combining Wahhabism with the use of modern technology to commit violence is only a few decades old. Stop speaking out of your ass. Furthermore, religion has very little to do with the underpinnings of suicide terrorism, which are economic hopelessness and malaise at the utter lack of political clout held by these people.

Religion is only a convenient vessel to express this through. Very similar to how if you study modern civil wars across the world, they often seem to be ethnic, or faith based. However, when you take a look at the economic substructures of these societies, it becomes pretty apparent that religion is just a line that people easily split down when everything goes to hell.

[duovamp]

Actually I have studied both terrorism and global economic policy formally.

[redbreegull]

then why are your opinions basically "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM"

[duovamp]

They're not.

[duovamp]

To clarify - please explain to me what happens between the US being in the ME and people flying jets into buildings, and how the way to prevent this is going to be having LESS of a presence. Because I feel like laughing today, also tell me how you plan on protecting women's rights as a result. "Gentle persuasion" is a bit vague.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by duovamp

lol nice troll comparison. The difference is our society condemns these acts and our government does not embrace them, nor does it enact laws to uphold violence against women.

So if W would've read his memos, there would be no plot or will for the 9/11 attacks? Sorry but people from this region want to destroy the great evil US for reasons way beyond what the US military did in the past. Removing US presence from anywhere in the world disrupts the hegemonic stability that keeps the US on top and allows other countries to profit from the worldwide order it upholds.

You think no one in Pakistan doesn't condemn violence against women there? They all go along with the program because they are all the same?

In this country, we have a rape culture, that some people like to support or joke about. For example, Missoula Montana is called the rape capital now. So many women are raped there and nothing was done about it until the feds had to come in and investigate. There are a lot of articles about this if anyone is interested. Even some college girls support women getting raped there, and blame in on the women it is happening to.

On the reservation in South Dakota, if a woman gets raped or beaten, she more than likely won't report it because the family of the guy will harass the family and threaten to kill them. If she reports it, she has to go into hiding at a shelter or she might be killed for reporting it.

In Montana, a Hutterite woman was killed because she removed her head covering repeatedly against her husband's orders and the orders of the elders in the ordinum. He said she was being promiscuous.

I'm just pointing out that every country has serious problems when it comes to abuses of women and you can't single out Pakistan and say it's okay for us to bomb them because they abuse their women there.

[Starla]

I don't condone Obama's expansion of the Bush defense policies (for the hundredth time). Does not change the fact that Romney would be just as bad if not worse, and Obama is a superior candidate in every other venue. Also does not change the fact that even if Gary Johnson won the election, I think you are credulous to believe he would act any differently either. I think you are not taking into account how far to the right the attitudes about defense tactics have gone in this country because of Bush. To the huge majority of voters, this is not even a discussable issue, it's already been settled. Your core problem is with the people around you, not Barack Obama. If you put a politician into office, that politician is going to recognize the bounds of his /her reality that cannot be transgressed without committing political suicide.

If Obama truly had any dream of going to DC and changing things, he certainly lost his backbone once he got there, and caved in to the pressures of right wing war hawk politics. And that's a shame. He had a chance to really do something, but either he went there with an agenda to continue down the same road as Bush, or he simply became spineless. He has lost many of his constituents over the years because of this. During his campaign in 2008, he presented himself as a completely different person.

Who is to say what Gary Johnson would do either, maybe he would go down the same path. We don't know until they get in there. Romney has already said in one of the debates that he will become even "more assertive" when it comes to wars and foreign policy, so we can almost count on more violence and wars with him.

Again, you are living in la la land. You still have not been able to rationalize how voting third party is doing anything constructive.

Maybe it's not constructive to you, but the bottom line here is, I won't vote for someone like mitt or obama.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by duovamp

To clarify - please explain to me what happens between the US being in the ME and people flying jets into buildings, and how the way to prevent this is going to be having LESS of a presence. Because I feel like laughing today, also tell me how you plan on protecting women's rights as a result. "Gentle persuasion" is a bit vague.

you are a moron. no one wants the US fucking around in their countries. Even people that want democracy and women's rights do not want the US fucking around in their countries. You seem to have some kind of severely twisted impression of how the US is viewed abroad, because no one in Afghanistan or Iraq sees the US as their golden savior, delivering them from the clutches of tyranny. They want the US to get the fuck out of their faces. The West has fucked over the Islamic world for decades, taking economic advantage of it, colonizing it, dividing it up, leaving the entire region with no political clout and no economic mobility. Gee, I wonder why people want to kill Americans then when we won't get the fuck out of there. Like I already told you, oh student of international relations, bin Laden and Mullah Omar's primary objective in carrying out 9/11 was to get the US to remove all troops from the Arabian peninsula.

[Eulogy]

let's not pretend the "islamic world" would be in tip top shape if not for our intervention

if you can shit on christianists, have the balls to shit on islamists too.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

bin Laden and Mullah Omar's primary objective in carrying out 9/11 was to get the US to remove all troops from the Arabian peninsula.

lol was it really?

they expected no reaction?

OH SHIT WE'D BETTER GO I GUESS

you're all talking out of your asses. this thread sucks. sometimes you have to recognize when you don't know shit.

[hnibos]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

if you can shit on christianists, have the balls to shit on islamists too.

Yeah.