PDA

View Full Version : Rebuttle from Necon Marine




Revolution0918
10-13-2009, 10:41 AM
So as i posted early last week, i got into it on facebook bcuz of 1 of my statuses which stated ,"bombing Pakistan illegally-check Killing innocent civilians in Afganistan-Check Continued occupation of Iraq-check Warmongering with Iran-Check Noble Peace Prize-check? Obama beat out Ghandi, this is a joke," to which one of the kids responded
"your political views are a joke. Innocent civilians? you're right because when you see a guy dead on the street wearing regular clothes you automatically think he's just a regular civilian... shame most terrorists dont wear a unified uniform. And since Afghanistan is pushing most Taliban into Pakistan they have created a breading ground there. ... Read MoreDunno what is illegal about killing those who want to kill us. And warmongering Iran? i guess allowing a country that says that they want to exterminate Israel to have nukes is a good idea.... Obama sucks, check... but your reasoning on the other is whack."

I spent the weekend responding to him, which i stated:

Revolution0918
10-13-2009, 10:42 AM
Tommy,
First of for the sake of the conversation, let me clarify two things: first, let us stick to facts so that we don’t cloud the argument with opinions and lies, and yes I would say stating that my “political views are a joke” would be included in this, as it serves no point to the argument, and second: thank you for serving our country, I appreciate your commitment very much, however like you, (I’m assuming that since your serving you did take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?) I believe in the Constitution, so let us start there.
After 9/11 clearly we were upset, and I’m sure like me, you wanted revenge. However, since we never DECLARED WAR, as the Constitution states, that is that Congress has the sole power to declare war, than we are ILLEGALLY at war with these countries. I agree that we have a right to defend ourselves, and if ATTACKED we should react, but extending the war to a whole region illegally, (let alone our own country) is a clear cut way to have another never ending war, such as Vietnam. With no clear cut objective, how can military personnel ever know what to do? Just keep adding troops (McChrystals latest request was another 40,000 troops) and kill all those that live in the countries? This cannot suffice. Next, we come to your comment about their uniforms. I am sure you have seen the numerous reports from the United States Government confirming that civilians have been killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not my opinion, it is a fact. Now, I agree that they don’t wear uniforms, (declaring war could easily solve this, mass collateral damage in WW2, yet we still had the support of the people) but simply going around and killing anyone because they are “suspect” is not a valid way to fight a war, and as it has shown we still after 8 YEARS don’t have the support of the people. This is the one thing that you will always need to win a war as stated by many historical figures, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Washington, Jefferson, Hitler, and Eisenhower, Georg H.W. Bush, just to name a few…the support of the people.
Next, I’m sure that you are aware that Al-Qaeda is a global network, and that it is not located solely in Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai claimed earlier this year that there are “no Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan,” a statement backed up by CENTCOM Commander, General David Petraeus on CNN, “I would agree with that assessment, certainly [about] Al-Qaeda and its affiliates.”This criminal organization continues to exist and operate around the world, but not in Afghanistan.” Therefore, how long should we stay killing citizens in a country where there isn’t even confirmed terrorists bases left in, except those that we create. With that said I would like to point you to look at the term known as “blowback.” This term was coined by Michael Scheuer, who was the chief of the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center in the late 1990’s. Sheuer, like yourself I’m assuming from your previous comments, is a conservative also. Now, I will forewarn you, I am not “blaming America” for what happened to us on 9/11, however we should try to see why it happened so that it doesn’t happen again wouldn’t you agree? The term blowback refers to the unintended consequences of our military intervention in countries around the world. To put it bluntly, as Scheuer does, “it is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them.” With this thinking, are we not just breeding a new generation of terrorists in these countries that we keep bombing? This is one of the reasons that Iran hates us to this day, with our intervention in their government in the 50’s, and another reason given for the bombing of the U.S.S Cole was for our meddling in Saudi affairs and the numerous bases that we have on their holy land. Either commit to the war, or get out of it…..sitting there watching our fellow countrymen die with no end or no clear cut strategy in sight is not worth it. There is no winning an occupation as history has shown, and Imperialism, which we clearly have today (over 700 bases in the world), is the downfall of every great civilization in human history.
Your next argument is that we have a right to kill those who want to kill us. Agreed, however once again, we never declared war on these countries, so we don’t necessarily have a right to do anything. Furthermore, there is a difference between WANTING to do something, and actually DOING something. This is the fallacy in our foreign policy these days; we use preemptive strikes in the “defense of America.” Quick reference….if our countries police officers used this technique (sadly some do) think of the chaos and civil rights violations that would come of it. Being able to arrest someone because “we think you’re going to do something” is a slippery slope that our country should not go down. Jumping to conclusions is exactly what got us in this situation isn’t it? If a full vetting operation was taken, our forces would not be in Iraq, using up our military personnel and supplies, and maybe we would have a sound strategy for Afghanistan. We’ve lost thousands of lives because of the war in Iraq, a war that was totally unjustified, but that our country failed to stand up to our government in protest to show that we will not stand for a government that attacks other countries without a just attack.
Finally, we come to the Israel/Iran situation. This can be a touchy situation, however let me assure you when talking about this, I have no bias against Israel, so please do not take these arguments out of context, I believe that my arguments will speak for themselves, but just had to clarify that. I do know that Iran’s president has said these things, yet first off, as I explained before, America cannot survive with a foreign policy based on preemptive strike, and should not rely on this. One only has to take a look at the 60’s cold war crisis to see what could have happened with this policy. But I have already listed my argument on that topic above, so let’s move to Israel. The problem with Israel is that it is just that, ISRAEL. I do not have a problem with Israel defending itself when attacked, as I stated above, every person and nation has a right to do this, but I, unlike the government, believe in what our country was founded on and that is “trade and commerce with all, alliances with none.” –T.J. What is the point of giving Israel over $2 billion a year in foreign aid (this is a gross understatement however, as it does not account for defense spending)? Does this not make us more enemies in the region when we supply them with arms and money every year? Moreover, we supply even more aid to countries in the Middle East. What is the thinking in this? Supply Israel’s enemies, and then attack them when they use the money and arms we gave them against Israel? That’s like our government saying we have to defend Pakistan in the region because if we don’t the Taliban will get a nuclear country……except without the U.S., they wouldn’t have that technology! Would Israel not be better standing on their own two feet? With the absence of our foreign aid to them, Israel would be under pressure to adopt a freer economy, bringing about greater prosperity for its people and making it easier for it to be self-sufficient, which it is clearly not. Israel has more than enough fire power to defend itself, and they should do so, on their own.
In closing, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the cumbersome ties we have with Israel are not about spreading democracy at all, just another waste of citizens’ money and soldiers lives. Those who believe we should, in Afghanistan, be creating a democracy, rebuilding the economy, providing women's rights, and protecting human rights are, I am sure, good people in their own way and minds. But they are, to a monstrous extent, selfish, unrealistic, and patently unconcerned with America's security. It is clear that the Afghanistan elections were rigged by the outcry of the Afghanis, and it is clear that the economy in the country still is not stable. Also, Afghanistan’s puppet President is just as horrible on women’s civil rights as many dictators that we despise in this country. For example, Afghan President Hamid Karzai approved a new law in August that entitles a husband to starve his wife if she refuses his sexual demands. If people really want to ensure that all these freedoms are given to countries around the world, they ought to join a non government organization, become a religious missionary, or join the Afghan army. Such people are at all times entitled to waste their lives in any manner they choose. They are not ever, however, entitled to spend the lives of America's soldier-children in anything other than America's defense. No U.S. soldier or Marine should ever be called on to be maimed or killed to make sure Mrs. Muhammad can vote or little Ibrahim can go to a secular school; they should be called on to make such sacrifices only in an effort to decisively defeat America's enemies on the battlefield or to defend its borders. In other words, if Mrs. Clinton wants to install women's rights in Afghanistan; and if Senator McCain wants to become involved in the civil war in Darfur; and if most members of the Congress want to do everything possible to defend Israel, let them all resign their official positions and go and take up their "sacred" causes as private citizens following their personal beliefs. They would all be likely to get their butts shot off, and America would be no poorer for their loss. Indeed, all Americans would be better off because we would stop intervening in other peoples' wars and we would preserve the lives of our soldier-children for the few occasions where the application of overwhelming military power is necessary to defend America. Our moral obligation in Afghanistan is framed solely by the requirement laid down by the Founders: America first.
Now I will ask you to read this with an open mind and if done so, you will clearly see that my political views are not, as you put them, “a joke”, but rather rationally thought out and clearly in defense of America and her citizens.

Revolution0918
10-13-2009, 10:43 AM
he replied back today with this:
"Your first point you brought up that after 9/11 the US did not declare war and that we are fighting a war that is unconstitutional because Congress never declared war.

You are correct that Congress does have the power to declare war. However, the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Congress does not have to formally declare war for the military to actually go to war. They can authorize military engagements, for instance: Vietnam War, Persian Gulf (Desert Storm), 2001 War in Afghanistan (OEF), And Iraq War (OIF).

If you google:

1) Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

&

2) Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

you will find that Congress, however not actually declaring war on a certain country, granted permission for the US military to begin operations and thus validate the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, these are 'legal' wars.

Also, after the attacks of 9/11 when we went into Afghanistan we were not fighting Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban where the two prime enemies that we were seeking to fight and seeing as they are not formal armies or fully part of any nation it was difficult to formally declare war on a specific country. We went to Afghanistan as that was the country housing most of the 'terrorists.' Thats the hard thing is that Bush's so called 'War on Terror' is as much a war as Reagan's 'War on Drugs.' It is impossible to win a war against an ideology. That is why this war which has dragged on for 8 years and is very complex and difficult. Wars aren't easy, especially a multi-faceted one but since the threat of terrorism is a national security problem it is a threat that we must face.


Now you're second point of civilians dying. Yes, civilians die it is collateral damage. Obviously the military does not seek to shoot innocent civilians, and sometimes there are mistakes I will give you that. Multi-million dollar bombs and missiles are not always accurate. But most of the people dying are ones who are not innocent so there really is no need to try and complain about how many innocent people are dying. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can debate if we should or should not be there for days and days, but the fact is we are there and that us leaving would hugely impact that area of the world and would not be good for American interests or security.

Yes you must have the support of the American people... the war in Vitenam was not won on the battlefields but in college campuses and city streets. Protest over that war ended it. However, this is a FAR different war. We cannot pull out. I do believe that the Marine Corps are not required in Iraq anymore because we are not a force that is capable of staying in places for long times. We are an assault force and we are not big enough to stay somewhere to show presence and help promote stability. Thus that is why the Army should take over more in Iraq freeing up the Marines to assault Afghanistan again. The surge in Iraq worked, and we need one in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda may be out of Afghanistan, but the Taliban are not. And the Taliban and Al Qaeda are two very deadly organizations of hate and they have worked in the past and still work together now. If you look at what happened Monday in the Pakistani border of Afghanistan that is Taliban at work. The are being forced out of Afghanistan and are seeking refuge in Pakistan as that government is in shambles and they are very corrupt and their intentions are not the best.

Getting into what you are saying about blowback and all... yes I understand and know all about how the CIA worked with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to fight the Soviets and thus we trained them and all that. (Read Ghost Wars, its a good book that talks all about that and Afghanistan.) I'm not going to go too much into that because theres nothing you can really change about what happened. We thought it was the best idea to train the most capable militia in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets and it worked. A big thing that also pissed of Bin Laden was when his home country of Saudi Arabia refused to use him and his freedom fighters to push Sadaam out of Kuwait back in the early 90's instead rely on the United States.

Yes, people all over the world hate us, but do you honestly think if we just pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and moved our entire military back out of the middle east and off their territories they would like us? No. They are going to hate us regardless, so we might as well do what is in the interest of our countries security and well being.

Preemptive War is something that is good and bad... however, that was mainly Bush's doctrine and as far as I know Obama is not using it. Also, under Bush we used preemptive strikes under the most detailed situations. It wasnt an everyday policy.

When you look at why we support Israel as a country you should look at who runs the financial industry of our nation. Politicians pass bills giving aid to those countries. And look at how many Pro-Israel Lobbyists there are. A politician will do anything for a buck or two. I don't really want to get into the whole should we or should we not support Israel because I am very Pro-Israel I believe that we should support them as they are our biggest ally in the middle east and the only TRUE people in that region that would support and help us. Besides you can also look at the importance of Israel in the bible. And do you not think that if we took away our support of Israel more countries would seek to engage Israel? they already fight enough wars and have fought forever. For Israel to actually lose a war would mean the end of them as a country. Also, I have just got back from a three week mission to Israel where I worked closely with Israeli Defense Forces so again I am very biased when it comes to the Israel issue.

I understand what you are saying about Americans dying for the rights of Afghanis and such and yes it might seem that way, but a stable Afghanistan is better for the security of America than an unstable one so that is why Marines and Soldiers risk their lives.

I do think you are missing the point that by helping other countries and creating more stability in the middle eastern/Asian area we are creating more stability for our country. It is more of a big picture thing. "

Wondering your thoughts??

yokna7
10-13-2009, 11:00 AM
... We thought it was the best idea to train the most capable militia in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets and it worked."


We can handle this one issue at a time. This is a complete fabrication. There is nothing to substantiate that our assistance had any affect on the fall of communism - which I believe he is implying. If that is not what he is implying then his assumption is worse. For it raises the question of why? Why would we aid the freedom fighters if there were nothing in it for us? Our aims were to aid in the killing and financial attrition of the Soviet Union without actually being at war with them. We did not defeat the Soviet Union, they were exhausted and decided it's continuation was no longer valuable. The fall of the Soviet Union was coincidental.......but ironic considering the very reasoning behind that illusion is why this gentlemen was in Afghanistan recently.

Brian4Liberty
10-13-2009, 11:00 AM
Also, after the attacks of 9/11 when we went into Afghanistan we were not fighting Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban where the two prime enemies that we were seeking to fight and seeing as they are not formal armies or fully part of any nation it was difficult to formally declare war on a specific country.

Wrong. The Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan.

dannno
10-13-2009, 11:02 AM
Osama is pissed at the west because the western backed Saudi's didn't use his freedom fighters to liberate Kuwait in the early 90s, and instead used our military?

Source?

yokna7
10-13-2009, 11:07 AM
Preemptive War is something that is good and bad... however, that was mainly Bush's doctrine and as far as I know Obama is not using it. Also, under Bush we used preemptive strikes under the most detailed situations. It wasnt an everyday policy.

Brainwashed.....this is the most offensive part of the rebuttle, like all neoconservatives he is delusional. He is caught up in the hawkish grandeur, a amorous fixation with "the nation". Neconservatives and Israel march to this same monotonous drum.

Preemptive war will never promote democracy. A third party source of aggression will never promote democracy.

MRoCkEd
10-13-2009, 11:09 AM
I'm currently debating some neocons myself on the facebook forums for CPAC 2010.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=15730558619&ref=ts
It's under the topic "Real conservatives are anti-war"

Brian4Liberty
10-13-2009, 11:10 AM
you will find that Congress, however not actually declaring war on a certain country, granted permission for the US military to begin operations and thus validate the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, these are 'legal' wars.

The Constitution (the law) requires that war be declared. Just because someone (or Congress) ignores the law does not mean it does not exist. We can not ignore laws that we do not like, even though many people do that. Average people will often get into trouble at some point when they ignore the law. I guess the difference is that no one will ticket, arrest or prosecute the government when they ignore the laws.

Brian4Liberty
10-13-2009, 11:13 AM
Osama is pissed at the west because the western backed Saudi's didn't use his freedom fighters to liberate Kuwait in the early 90s, and instead used our military?

Source?

Can't give you the source, but yes, I have heard that too. Osama volunteered to raise and bring a jihad army to defend Saudi Arabia and drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The Saudi's turned him down, for obvious reasons.

Cowlesy
10-13-2009, 11:22 AM
I love when someone has "we're at risk of a nuclear holocaust!" and you reply with a "Yeah I know. The soviets had several thousand ICBM's pointed at us for 30 some years" and we didn't invade the USSR and they end with "You hate freedom. Appease and Retreat. Liberal."

JXL78
10-13-2009, 11:51 AM
Just arguing with someone today who fears Iran or someone else could take out our satellites with missiles. lol

RideTheDirt
10-13-2009, 11:58 AM
Just arguing with someone today who fears Iran or someone else could take out our satellites with missiles. lol
The only 2 countries who have done this are the US and China.
Why would the chinese shoot down something they are financing?
Unless they want their money...;):p

TastyWheat
10-13-2009, 11:59 AM
The Constitution (the law) requires that war be declared. Just because someone (or Congress) ignores the law does not mean it does not exist. We can not ignore laws that we do not like, even though many people do that. Average people will often get into trouble at some point when they ignore the law. I guess the difference is that no one will ticket, arrest or prosecute the government when they ignore the laws.
Good call. Legal and constitutional are not the same thing. He's obviously taken the common political view that the Constitution should only be invoked when it's in ones own favor.

angelatc
10-13-2009, 12:02 PM
Good call. Legal and constitutional are not the same thing. He's obviously taken the common politi
cal view that the Constitution should only be invoked when it's in ones own favor.

And reading up on David Hedrick reminded me of a point I've heard before. The founders did not want the act of war to be placed in the hands of a single person for several reasons, one of which was to ensure the country was united behind the effort.

I'm thinking that WWII was about the last time we even came close to that. Coincidence?

BlackTerrel
10-13-2009, 02:26 PM
Is this one of your buddies? Or are you friends on Facebook with people you do not know in real life?

JeNNiF00F00
10-13-2009, 03:05 PM
IMO this person is a waste of time. He has been brainwashed into thinking he is doing the right thing and if he is over there or has been over there recently, he is most likely still in battle mode where his defenses are up.

Revolution0918
10-13-2009, 03:32 PM
he went to my high school like 6 yrs ago....so i "know him" but dont really know him

JeNNiF00F00
10-13-2009, 03:37 PM
he went to my high school like 6 yrs ago....so i "know him" but dont really know him

wonder if he could tell you how many people hes murdered.

Icymudpuppy
10-13-2009, 03:56 PM
Ask him if he has considered joining Oathkeepers.org.

Ask him if we wouldn't do any of those things to Americans, why would we do it to people from other countries.

Just because a person isn't an American doesn't mean they aren't granted the same God-given inalienable rights all humans have. It just means their government doesn't recognize those rights. They still have those rights, and are entitled to fight for them.

LibForestPaul
10-13-2009, 07:14 PM
you planted the seeds. I would say end it.

you can ask questions, but do not give any response if you want to continue.
1. What are the powers to granted to congress under article 8?
2. Who was freely elected in Iran and how was he ousted and why?
etc ... no comments no answers !!!

Revolution0918
10-15-2009, 09:04 AM
so there is defly no hope for this kid.....i just asked him if he thought it was ok to go against the constitution....to which he replyed, "on somethings yes, it waswritten 300 yrs ago"....god help r country, no wonder its in decline

Brian4Liberty
10-15-2009, 10:40 AM
so there is defly no hope for this kid.....i just asked him if he thought it was ok to go against the constitution....to which he replyed, "on somethings yes, it waswritten 300 yrs ago"....god help r country, no wonder its in decline

Ask what the "rule of law" is about. Why have laws if no one follow them?

georgiaboy
10-15-2009, 10:41 AM
"though shalt not kill" was written thousands of years ago -- obviously outdated.

PlzPeopleWakeUp
10-15-2009, 01:09 PM
I love Big Brother.