General Discussion

Progressive dog

(7,588 posts)

23. ^^K&R^^

Reply to sub.theory (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 11, 2014, 08:04 AM

Sep 2014

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

144 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This is a war of aggression [View all] morningfog Sep 2014 OP

You got that right. Every. Single. Word. blkmusclmachine Sep 2014 #1

executing u.s. citizen journalists doesn't justify intervention? Adam051188 Sep 2014 #2

A 3-year regional war is not simply "intervention." morningfog Sep 2014 #5

Occasionally, we defend others who are victims of aggression. Where have you been? NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #3

That argument may have worked when the scope morningfog Sep 2014 #8

Iraq asked for Obama's help, did they ask for Bush's help? JoePhilly Sep 2014 #26

You mean Saddam didn't ask to be deposed? Bragi Sep 2014 #35

The current Iraq government has asked JoePhilly Sep 2014 #46

Both are wars of aggression /nt Bragi Sep 2014 #55

I'm not sure how one would go about having a war without it! [nt] Jester Messiah Sep 2014 #129

When did Syria ask for our help? morningfog Sep 2014 #60

Did Germany ask for our help in WWII? (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #103

Germany declared war on the US and then conducted offensive operations against US shipping in the neverforget Sep 2014 #119

And did they ask for our help? jeff47 Sep 2014 #120

Germany is a bad analogy then. neverforget Sep 2014 #121

No, Syrians (as members of ISIS) invaded Iraq. jeff47 Sep 2014 #122

ISIS is NOT a nation-state. Germany declared war as part of the treaty with Japan after Japan neverforget Sep 2014 #123

Doesn't matter. Syrians are invading. jeff47 Sep 2014 #126

'Regular old war'? What does that mean? Tanks and infantry? randome Sep 2014 #31

For the outrage to remain at current levels... JoePhilly Sep 2014 #47

We are in it so the MIC can continue to soak up our tax dollars. Dustlawyer Sep 2014 #88

Thank you. I can't believe people are call it a war of aggression when we were asked to help. Maraya1969 Sep 2014 #91

Thank you. And it's about as measured and limited in scope as anyone could ask for. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #93

We are always promised about "measured war and limited in scope operations." KoKo Sep 2014 #124

Ignoring the rest of the issue, F4lconF16 Sep 2014 #138

Occasionally? There are billions of people in this world who need help. Why the middle east? liberal_at_heart Sep 2014 #131

Yes it is. It is not counter-terrorism. It is war. cali Sep 2014 #4

He said there were threats to American interests. HereSince1628 Sep 2014 #6

And the more American money and personnel we send, morningfog Sep 2014 #7

Yes, that's part of the "Sunk Cost" effect, usually exploited by casinos HereSince1628 Sep 2014 #11

Human Rights - To Hell with Em sub.theory Sep 2014 #9

The best way to avenge human rights abuses is with more human rights abuses. morningfog Sep 2014 #17

You realize how many innocents will die if no one lifts a finger to help? randome Sep 2014 #33

Actually, Congress is supposed to make that calculation Vattel Sep 2014 #37

The CIC makes the calculation and presents it to Congress. Same thing. randome Sep 2014 #43

He doesn't have the authority to place the nation in a state of war, which is what he is doing. Vattel Sep 2014 #62

So call for him to be impeached, then. randome Sep 2014 #69

Muddled thinking has muddled it. And the suggestion that this is not war in the relevant sense is Vattel Sep 2014 #75

War, 'as that concept was understood', related to nations. ISIS is not a nation. randome Sep 2014 #81

In 18th century America the concept of war was not used only to apply to international violence. Vattel Sep 2014 #117

You have it backwards. amandabeech Sep 2014 #125

It's a difference without a distinction. Yes, you are both correct. randome Sep 2014 #140

Under the Constitution, there is a difference. amandabeech Sep 2014 #142

I agree with you but if I may add a historical note -- Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2014 #141

The US Won't be Targeting Innocent Civilians sub.theory Sep 2014 #44

Thanks for your preemptive apologetics /nt Bragi Sep 2014 #57

The US is not at threat. This is not our fight. Even Turkey, who shares a large border morningfog Sep 2014 #61

Thus, the hell with human rights sub.theory Sep 2014 #68

What a valuable coalition member! morningfog Sep 2014 #70

I agree with you there sub.theory Sep 2014 #71

You didn't address the question down below, so I will ask it again joeglow3 Sep 2014 #74

Wrong question. Here is a better analogy: morningfog Sep 2014 #76

What gang was the beheaded journalist in? joeglow3 Sep 2014 #77

Were we at threat from Al Qaeda? Schema Thing Sep 2014 #98

We need to let brown people kill brown people and stay out of it FrodosPet Sep 2014 #132

Bombing Syria would not address those residents morningfog Sep 2014 #134

I suppose you are right FrodosPet Sep 2014 #139

Of COURSE we won't be targeting innocent civilians -- we never do! But . . . markpkessinger Sep 2014 #130

And if we hadn't aggressively invaded Europe in WW2, how many more millions would have died? pnwmom Sep 2014 #97

^^K&R^^ Progressive dog Sep 2014 #23

Who cares if Boko Haram is murdering, raping and pillaging? cali Sep 2014 #36

They need to be dealt with too sub.theory Sep 2014 #48

so far, we have seen dismal failure- in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We have seen the growth cali Sep 2014 #58

What other approach? sub.theory Sep 2014 #73

Thanks for the flashback from 2003. This is exactly what caused this mess in the first place. Chathamization Sep 2014 #111

Lots of people in Kurdistan and northern Iraq would disagree on who the aggressor is. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #10

It is. However... The_Commonist Sep 2014 #12

I agree. I think he's stewarding CJCRANE Sep 2014 #18

We have been buying it for years, amandabeech Sep 2014 #127

PNAC by any other name would still smell of death. Octafish Sep 2014 #13

We should just allow them to behead American citizen journalists with no consequences? Mercy_Queen Sep 2014 #14

I feel badly for their families, too. morningfog Sep 2014 #20

More Americans died in the ensuing wars than on 9/11. CJCRANE Sep 2014 #22

I'm for us fight ISIS, but not simply to avenge the deaths of two Americans Schema Thing Sep 2014 #100

Emotional reasoning at it's best phil89 Sep 2014 #102

No, you arrest them and bring them to trial. Don't need a war. How bout we go to war with Saudi grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #118

I disagree. I will have to launch an independent thread on this. Laelth Sep 2014 #15

Not Even Close, Ma'am The Magistrate Sep 2014 #16

US air force for hire. Free of charge. What a great set up. morningfog Sep 2014 #24

Be That As It May, Ma'am, This Is Straight Charter-Sanctioned Self-Defense And Not Aggressive War The Magistrate Sep 2014 #28

It is not US self-defense. It is a war of choice and aggression for us to enter. morningfog Sep 2014 #30

That Is Not How It Works, Ma'am The Magistrate Sep 2014 #42

Our mission is much broader than protecting the people of Iraq or Iraq's territorial integrity. morningfog Sep 2014 #54

I Question Your Analysis, Ma'am The Magistrate Sep 2014 #66

So in WWII we should have stopped at France's border? (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #107

there appear to be many questions regarding its legality. cali Sep 2014 #40

People Can Always Be Found, Ma'am, To Claim Use Of Force By The U.S. Is a Crime The Magistrate Sep 2014 #45

From what I've been reading it doesn't appear that way at all. Some very cali Sep 2014 #50

Most Of What I Have Seen, Ma'am, Relates To Constitutionality The Magistrate Sep 2014 #65

And Syria? Syria isn't asking us to bomb their territory. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #106

Syria Exercises No Governance Over Areas Held By I.S.I.L., Comrade The Magistrate Sep 2014 #110

Like Nixon bombing Cambodia. GeorgeGist Sep 2014 #114

Bombing North Vietnamese Forces In Cmbodia Was Not Illegal, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #115

Like Iraq it will also be a violation of international law malaise Sep 2014 #19

+1 newfie11 Sep 2014 #49

So no invasion and occupation? JoePhilly Sep 2014 #21

No occupation. morningfog Sep 2014 #29

So when you say we'll be adding troops JoePhilly Sep 2014 #39

This isn't about me Joe. morningfog Sep 2014 #51

It's about your opinion. JoePhilly Sep 2014 #63

I haven't walked shit back. morningfog Sep 2014 #67

You did walk some "shit" back. JoePhilly Sep 2014 #83

Wrong, it's only when there is an R in office that it's aggression. Puzzledtraveller Sep 2014 #25

Unless the country asked for our help. JoePhilly Sep 2014 #32

We are part of the world Progressive dog Sep 2014 #27

That argument only worked when there was a specific threat to a specific people. morningfog Sep 2014 #34

So the Kurds and the people trapped on the mountain Progressive dog Sep 2014 #59

Iraq's territory and everything within Syria are not specific atrocities to people. morningfog Sep 2014 #64

ISIS leaders actually have threatened the USA, Progressive dog Sep 2014 #112

oh come on treestar Sep 2014 #38

Because he's been sure we were going to invade JoePhilly Sep 2014 #41

Wars R Us marions ghost Sep 2014 #52

+1 valerief Sep 2014 #56

Correct. Thespian2 Sep 2014 #78

Endless war is the agenda marions ghost Sep 2014 #94

I seem to recall over the past couple of years seeing people on the teevee promoting books about how valerief Sep 2014 #53

As was the air campaign against Bosnia and Herzegovina. LanternWaste Sep 2014 #72

The unanswered question to me... freebrew Sep 2014 #79

Back in 2001, people were pissed off because the Bushistas ignored al-Quaida. riqster Sep 2014 #80

Doesn't make sense, does it? sub.theory Sep 2014 #85

Agreed. It's a huge mess, partly of America's devising. riqster Sep 2014 #89

We have always been at war with Eastasia Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #82

It is that and more. Are we in fact ballyhoo Sep 2014 #84

Bush Doctrine-Obama Doctrine=Corporate Doctrine. woo me with science Sep 2014 #86

War is what happens when you lower the U.S. deficit. Always. nt valerief Sep 2014 #87

why are you surprised? This is who we are now. librechik Sep 2014 #90

As Al From said. "The antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party." raouldukelives Sep 2014 #92

The Best and the Brightest OldRedneck Sep 2014 #95

Exactly. We never learn phil89 Sep 2014 #104

Thank you for posting. n/t amandabeech Sep 2014 #128

When we went to war against Germany, Germany hadn't attacked us. pnwmom Sep 2014 #96

Don't forget the mercenary armies we have over there. Why did Erik Prince move to sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #99

No, it isn't. jeff47 Sep 2014 #101

Agreed. These ridiculous OPs contain the laziest most superficial analysis imaginable in order to stevenleser Sep 2014 #105

Slogans and labels are far more important than reality. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #108

Unlike your careful and sophisticated work. morningfog Sep 2014 #137

I always include facts and links, unlike you. nt stevenleser Sep 2014 #143

Neener neener. No you don't. morningfog Sep 2014 #144

No it's not! They sunk the Maine...er..attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin...er..the Alamo? Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #109

kick for the truth woo me with science Sep 2014 #113

especially when you include Syria. grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #116

responding to Iraq's Niceguy1 Sep 2014 #133

Yeah, you got me pegged nice guy. morningfog Sep 2014 #136

Grenada, anyone? raven mad Sep 2014 #135