Police State Thread

When you have you neighbors who surround you and they all deny your right to exist and say things like we will drive the Israelis into the sea and who also say they will not rest until there's no Jewish state left. Why would you give these people more land to attack you from? If I were an Israeli I'd vote for the guy who was going to wipe out every hostile country until nothing stands but Israel. I think they have been overly kind and have worked hard at living with their neighbors peacefully. Israel only attacks when she's been attacked how can you in your right mind impune that? Don't you believe we all have a right to defend ourselves?
 
You need to stop with this left and right bullshit. I don't follow politics like that nor do i care what left and right mean or are supposed to represent.

Yes Israel gives a couple minutes heads up. Wow. Couple minutes to move your entire life from one area to another. How gracious of them to be so considerate.

They also realize these people have nowhere to go so they can afford to give them a heads up as most won't be able to leave anyway. Once again, how courageous of Israel and her policies.

They also allow use Palestinians as human shields.......
They also commit war crimes......
They also misled the world in the massacre of Palestinians in 2 refugee camps....
Well are they supposed to give them the time to move the rocket batteries? If you want to place blame you should place it with terrorists shooting rockets from residential areas.
 
When you have you neighbors who surround you and they all deny your right to exist and say things like we will drive the Israelis into the sea and who also say they will not rest until there's no Jewish state left. Why would you give these people more land to attack you from? If I were an Israeli I'd vote for the guy who was going to wipe out every hostile country until nothing stands but Israel. I think they have been overly kind and have worked hard at living with their neighbors peacefully. Israel only attacks when she's been attacked how can you in your right mind impune that? Don't you believe we all have a right to defend ourselves?

They do not deny the right to exist as a people and/or religion. They deny having land "stolen"'from them in order to do so. Israel does not attack only when attacked. That is what you have come to believe but not reality.
 
No of course not. They are supposed to bomb innocent civilians. That's the only way to fight of course.
I say let them all fight it out and whoever wins gets the land. We don't help Israel the Eastern commies don't help the Arabs let em go to war and whoever wins wins and we put this to bed.
 
I say let them all fight it out and whoever wins gets the land. We don't help Israel the Eastern commies don't help the Arabs let em go to war and whoever wins wins and we put this to bed.

Sure,'let's do this after we have been giving Israel BILLIONS in aid and weapons for years upon years. Let's do this when Israel is the only country in the region with nuclear weapons bc the world deems it ok for them to have nukes but nobody else.
 
When you have you neighbors who surround you and they all deny your right to exist and say things like we will drive the Israelis into the sea and who also say they will not rest until there's no Jewish state left. Why would you give these people more land to attack you from? If I were an Israeli I'd vote for the guy who was going to wipe out every hostile country until nothing stands but Israel. I think they have been overly kind and have worked hard at living with their neighbors peacefully. Israel only attacks when she's been attacked how can you in your right mind impune that? Don't you believe we all have a right to defend ourselves?

Two things. 1) the Palestinians have bad blood between them and the Jews because they were forced to move from the land they legally owned at the time of occupation due to the Balfour declaration that was orchestrated since before the Jews went through what they did in ww2. This document demonstrated that before the holocaust Jewish powers were working to have the British establish a new home for them in Palestine. Understandably if someone came and said I had to move and my peoples territory gradually transformed into small plots if be just as upset as them I suppose.

2) Ted 'cruise' Cruz is a fucking joke and isn't fooling everyone. He touts his supposed Hispanic heritage but every Mexican, Cuban, etc can see the fool for exactly what he is. The guy is as separated from the ones he calls 'his people' as they come. He works with white people, he lives with white people, his friends are white people. You take one look at the the guy and can see there's nothing in his life to suggest that he honors his culture and in fact only uses it to spout his mouth of about things he knows nothing about. He talks about how his father was 'tortured and starved' in cuba. And now he thinks he's going to ride his race to the White House but unlike Obama he hasn't and won't sell his bullshit to 'his people'. Myself included, and I personally beleive repub and dems are two sides of the same coin but I'd vote rand paul before Cruz.
 
Israel


Mideast-Israel-Palest_Muha.jpg
Firefighters extinguish a fire in the rubble of the destroyed 15-story Basha Tower, following early morning Israeli airstrikes in Gaza City, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2014.

BEIRUT — Israel is pulling out all the stops to prevent an examination by the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague in the Netherlands into alleged war crimes committed during its offensive on Gaza last summer that left over 2,300 dead and over 500,000 people homeless.

In an interview with Israel Radio last month, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/18/us-icc-palestinians-israel-idUSKBN0KR06720150118, “We will demand of our friends in Canada, in Australia and in Germany simply to stop funding it [the court].”

Since Jan. 16, when Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor of the ICC, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine, Israel has forced the resignation of the head of the United Nations inquiry into Operation Protective Edge and called on members of the tribunal to cut funding to the court.

“So long as any institution for the prosecution of war crimes exists, the Israeli state knows that under any system of justice it’s their leaders and officials that are going to be facing prosecution for their ongoing and systematic war crimes against the Palestinian people,” said Charlotte Kates, the coordinator for the National Lawyers Guild International Committee.

“So, of course they want to see the ICC defunded,” she told MintPress.

Human Rights Watch investigated three attacks on schools in Gaza that occurred during Operation Protective Edge. The report concluded that two of the three “did not appear to target a military objective or were otherwise unlawfully indiscriminate,” while the third was “unlawfully disproportionate if not otherwise unlawfully indiscriminate.”

“Unlawful attacks carried out willfully – that is, deliberately or recklessly – are war crimes,” the HRW report asserted.

Likewise, an http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/029/2014/en investigation into Israel’s destruction of buildings in Gaza determined that these attacks “are examples of what appears to have been deliberate destruction and targeting of civilian buildings and property on a large scale, carried out without military necessity.”

Kates told MintPress that even though the system by which the court prosecutes entities is flawed, the very fact that such a body exists that calls for the international prosecution of war crimes is always going to be something that the Israeli state looks at with “fear, anger, and hatred.”

Kates explained that both the United States and Israel want to remain outside the jurisdiction of the international legal body.

“Unfortunately, what that’s meant is that rather than being a court that actually been used to bring to justice the biggest war criminals and violators of human rights… it’s been used almost exclusively against African leaders,” Kates said. “So what we see is that even the International Criminal Court is used to perpetuate colonial injustice.”


Fighting the ICC
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/23086 (Over 2,300 people) — mostly Gazans — were killed and nearly 500,000 people internally displaced by Israel’s Operation Protective Edge last summer.

With the war as a backdrop, the government of Palestine acceded to the ICC’s founding charter, the Rome Statute, on Jan. 2. This allows the court jurisdiction over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. It also allows Palestine to lodge a formal request for the court to investigate possible war crimes in its territory, which it didhttp://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr1083.aspx.

The court has sincehttp://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr1083.aspx that it will open a preliminary examination over alleged crimes committed “in the occupied Palestinian territory… since June 13, 2014” with “full independence and impartiality.”

Israel has responded by calling on the 122 member states of the ICC to stop funding the court.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermanhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/18/us-icc-palestinians-israel-idUSKBN0KR06720150118 last month that the ICC “represents no one. It is a political body.”

Leading backers of the ICC, including Germany, Britain and France, recently told Reuters that they would ignore Israel’s call to defund the institution.


The International Criminal Court
As http://www.issafrica.org/anicj/uploads/Schabas_Introduction_to_the_ICC.pdf is not part of the U.N., it is responsible for its own funding. It accepts contributions from states that have ratified its charter, and these contributions are based on a state’s population size and wealth. It also receives money from the U.N., which refers cases to the court from the U.N. Security Council. Additionally, the ICC can receive voluntary contributions from individuals, corporations, international organizations and governments. However, these contributions “are not intended to affect the independence of the Court.”

http://www.issafrica.org/anicj/uploads/Schabas_Introduction_to_the_ICC.pdf was created on an ad hoc basis in the early 1990s to address violence and injustices being committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Prior to those trials, however, the International Law Commission, a U.N. body, had already put the wheels in motion for the creation of a permanent court.

After 60 member states ratified the Rome Statute, it entered into force on July 1, 2002, thus officially establishing the ICC. Both the U.S. and Israel have signed the treaty but never ratified it.

Israel issued a statement on June 30, 2002 declaring that it would not ratify the statute due to concerns that “the court will be subjected to political pressures and its impartiality will be compromised.”

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs specifically took issue with the fact that the court sees “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a war crime.

It further stated that it believes this part of the statute came under “pressure of Arab states,” and “is clearly intended to try to use the court to force the issue of Israeli settlements without the need for negotiation as agreed between the sides.”

Following an Israeli assault on the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin in the West Bank in April 2002, Hans Koechler, president of the International Progress Organisation in Austria, criticized Israel for not ratifying the Rome Statute.

“A real chance for the prosecution of war crimes by the ICC may only exist if and when the State of Palestine has been recognised as a subject of international law and as a member of the United Nations and after this state will have ratified the Rome Statute,” Koechler said.


Israel and the ICC
Yet it is ironic that Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute and does not plan to do so, as the idea for the court originated in the wake of World War II in light of Nazi Germany’s war crimes against Jews and other groups.

“Much of the human rights framework that we use comes from the post-Nuremberg era and the international revulsion of the crimes of the Nazis, and the international unity that existed between Western colonial powers and the Soviet Union around the crimes of the Nazis, as well as growing decolonization movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America,” Kates told MintPress.

Kates is also the coordinator of Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, a network of organizers and activists, based in North America, working to build solidarity with Palestinian prisoners around the world in their struggle for freedom.

“These things are the basis of the system of human rights we have,” Kates added.

However, Kates stated that she does not believe it is ironic that Israel is not supporting the ICC, as the creators of the state of Israel were not the ideological inheritors of the struggle and legacy of the victims of the Nazis.

“The lessons of that era aren’t anything that belong to a racist exclusionary settler-colonial state in Palestine,” she said. “I think it’s time that we stop associating and stop going along with Israeli propaganda that wants to claim that the Jewish and other victims of the Holocaust, who perished at the hands of the Nazis, and use them to justify their racism and colonization against Palestinians.”


Attacking the chair of the ICC
Last month, a letter of complaint was written by Israel’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Eviatar Manor. The letter claimed that William A. Schabas, the head of the U.N.’s inquiry into Operation Protective Edge, faced a conflict of interest with regards to the investigation.

Manor provided information that Schabas had prepared a legal opinion for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and received $1,300 for his work. Israel has framed this to mean that Schabas is beholden to the PLO and so cannot conduct an examination into Palestine without bias.

Schabas resigned four days later, stating in his letter of resignation that he was resigning because of a procedure underway “to consider whether the Chair of the Commission [him] should be removed.” (Schabas has since been replaced by U.S. Judge Mary McGowan Davis.)

“Normally, a judicial or quasi-judicial body would resolve such a challenge before proceeding further. Yet the Commission cannot delay its work as it must produce its report in a matter of weeks,” he wrote. “Under the circumstances, and with great regret, I believe the important work of the Commission is best served if I resign with immediate effect.”

Referring to the PLO, Kates explained that Schabas, like most international law scholars, “has done work for organizations.”

“It’s really no surprise that somebody’s done work before on an issue related to Palestine,” she said. “However, it seems that the only time this leads to a charge of bias or someone winds up resigning is when the connection is to any kind of Palestinian organization because having a partnership with Israeli organization is seen simply as a part of politics.”

She told MintPress that one of the messages being sent with regards to Schabas is that associating oneself with Palestinians could be detrimental to one’s career.

“The reality is that regardless of this particular contract that William Schabas had, he’s a renowned scholar of international law,” she said, explaining that there is no doubt that he was going to study international law and analyze the situation as it existed.

“We can see what Israel did in Gaza. We can see the hundreds of thousands displaced. We can see the thousands killed. We know what happened, and that’s what this committee was tasked with investigating,” she said

http://www.mintpressnews.com/israel...-if-war-crime-investigations-continue/201967/
 
I think any politician who is vehemently opposed to the separation of church and state is a nut job. Do you believe there should be laws preventing businesses from selling alcohol on Sundays? Do you believe that marriage should even be recognized by government? Do you believe the TPP will really help establish "free trade"? Or is it just another example of corporate cronyism? Do you believe in growing the military and blowing more tax dollars on national defense and military spending? Do you believe in world policing? Do you think war is good foreign policy? Do you believe terrorists are honestly coming to the U.S. to kill us because they hate our "freedom", or do you think that maybe U.S. military occupation and intervention in the Middle East what sparked terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? Do you believe in giving police officers more power?

I don't support a warfare, welfare, police state.
 
I think any politician who is vehemently opposed to the separation of church and state is a nut job. Do you believe there should be laws preventing businesses from selling alcohol on Sundays? Do you believe that marriage should even be recognized by government? Do you believe the TPP will really help establish "free trade"? Or is it just another example of corporate cronyism? Do you believe in growing the military and blowing more tax dollars on national defense and military spending? Do you believe in world policing? Do you think war is good foreign policy? Do you believe terrorists are honestly coming to the U.S. to kill us because they hate our "freedom", or do you think that maybe U.S. military occupation and intervention in the Middle East what sparked terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? Do you believe in giving police officers more power?

I don't support a warfare, welfare, police state.
I absolutely believe in the separation of church and state. I believe anyone should be able to sell anything on any day/time. I believe government should be completely out of the marriage issue as well as any private store ought to be able to sell/not sell to whoever they want. I don't trust the tpp nafta or any other deals our government cuts behind closed doors. I believe the military is one of the only places we should be spending large amounts of tax dollars , without the massive ammounts spent on military we wouldn't have things like the cell phone and computers we're talking on now this technology only came about through huge government military contracts and has benefited us grestly! We should have the biggest baddest military on the planet bar none , no one would even dare take us on. These terrorists want a caliphate , they want sharia imposed worldwide they hate freedoms especially free strong women and fags. I have said I do not believe in giving police more power they're already not respecting our freedoms and protections afforded us in the bill of rights. I support war when it protects America and her allies and interests. I don't agree with being the police man of the world or holding up corrupt dictators or forcing our style of governance on another people. I hate welfare and think it should be done away with immediately!
 
By establishing a caliphate I assume u mean ISIS. The whole caliphate push came from ISIS, and other secular groups opposed ISIS appointing an unknown caliphate. But we need to look at what made us a target for terrorist groups and it was bad foreign policy.

The Middle East and new terrorism

With the advent of the September 11 events, the two subjects of new terrorism and Middle Eastern studies have emerged as two substantial components of international security studies. In other words, the subject of terrorism as the crucial threatening factor to international peace and security and as the major challenge facing the global community has acquired great importance.

The question that arises here is why new terrorism has emerged in the Middle East. To find a sensible answer, one should consider multiple contributing factors. Although the unique political, cultural and economic characteristics of Middle Eastern societies (i.e. their cultural- ethnic fragmentation, religious confrontations, traditional communities, the occurrence of the wars, etc.) provided a platform, the author maintains that, in dealing with the regional issues, the policies of the global community have played the major role for the development of new terrorism.

In the contemporary history of the Middle East, Britain and the United States have respectively shaped the policies of the global system. As for the British colonialist policies, it is imperative to understand that the political map and ethnic boundaries of the region were drawn in accordance with the demands of British foreign policy in the first half of the 20th century. The devastating British policies [3] based on securing British national interests have more than anything resulted in unrealistic territorial divisions and the consequent establish- ment of artificial states. As a result, no distinctly Arab or non-Arab state can be found today in the region without serious difficulty. Given these policies, the second half of the century wit- nessed numerous wars and crises and thus more ethnic and religious fragmentation in the region. The outcome was the enduring existence of authoritarian regimes which by enjoying the support of the global community have been able to suppress their national demands for political openness, fair distribution of power, and a competitive position in the globalised economy as the prerequisites for any democratisation process [4].

As for the role of the United States following the British withdrawal from the region in 1971, more complexity and tension has undoubtedly been brought into the region. In order to secure US national interests – as US leaders have recently confessed – the requests of the people from the Middle East for democratisation have long been sacrificed in order to achieve stability in the region [5]. Over the past three decades, US policies aimed at preserving stability have contributed to the halting of any democratisation efforts. These stability-seeking policies have been based on two strategic pillars: the control of energy sources and the termination of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Achieving the first goal, US foreign policy has manifested itself in two primary ways: support of autocratic regimes and military presence. After the first Persian Gulf War, arms transfers and diplomatic and economic support systems continue to play a substantial role in keeping autocratic regimes in power thereby strengthening regional stability. By virtue of their empowerment, these regimes have been able to carry out internal repression [6]. Opposition groups have not been allowed to compete in an open political process and there has been no democratic distribution of power. As a result of this policy, many Arabs today regard the US as guilty of delaying the creation of political openness [7]. Over the past years, demands to establish real parliamentary systems have been foiled. The result is the emergence of extremism on the one hand, and the creation of a specific ‘power-base’ on the other hand, which in turn has encouraged new levels of extremism.
 
US policy in the region in the early 1980s also played a part in creating the initial conditions for radicalism to develop. For example, Washington backed Sunni radical groups against the Soviet army in Afghanistan as a means of limiting the influence of the Islamic revolution in Iran. The result of that policy today is Al-Queda and new terrorism. Supportive US policy towards the Taliban in Afghanistan in the mid 1990s provided Al-Queda with the opportunity to organise, recruit, and train operatives in preparation for terrorist activities around the world.

US support for regional regimes has moreover created a kind of ‘power-base’ which by its nature undermines work towards democratisation. As a result of these supportive policies we witness the existence of unusual authoritarian regimes along with distinctive closed power circuits in the region which are monopolised, unbalanced, unlimited, and offer advantages to those who are loyal to the core of the system. With the existence of these kinds of power bases, there is less chance for any democratisation process. Such a process could only occur at the determination of those in power, not by the will of the people.

As for US military presence, the first Persian Gulf War enabled the establishment of several permanent US military bases. This presence has continued and has become an important component in the forging of political alliances between the US and various Middle Eastern regimes. Although these regimes were grateful for this strong US presence during the 1990s, it is now felt that the American intervention was not in accordance with international law, nor did it facilitate self-determination or the development of human rights. Rather, it protected US access to, and control of, energy resources and was in essence purely self- interested in order to preserve stability in the region. US policy caused the new wave of religious extremism by creating dissatisfaction, distrust and a popular negative reaction against US military presence and its intervention in the internal affairs of the nations of the region. Ironically, this increase in tension and violence has itself become the main obstacle to further democratisation.

As regards termination of the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, in order to preserve stability US policies have always favoured Israel as the counter-weight to the regional powers. Over the past decade the United States has not been a fair mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict: biased US policy has created enormous resentment as diplomatic, financial, and military support for the Israeli regime and its humiliating attitude to the Palestinians has continued. The failure of the US to be a fair mediator means that Arab feelings towards it are rapidly worsening.

This growing Arab frustration is thought of as the primary catalyst of the move towards extremism and of attempts to obtain rights through armed struggle or even sometimes through terrorist activity. As the Iraq case displays, some segments of more politicised and radicalised Sunni Muslims are feeling the need to wage Jihad in support of their suffering brethren and to restore the lost credit of Muslims. At present, Muslim public opinion is daily expressing its concern about the US led war on terror and its threat to Islam [8]. A negative view of US policy among Muslims had previously been largely confined to countries in the Middle East but has now increasingly spread to other parts of the Islamic world.
Another sign of the sacrifice of the democratisation effort is provided by US interference in overthrowing Mosadeq’s national government in the 1953 coup in Iran, ultimately resulting in the extension of Shiite radicalism in the wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Although
Shiite radicalism introduced fewer threats to the global community, when combined with the flexible Persian culture it became the example of Sunni radicalism in the 1980s and 1990s. Presently, the main legitimacy of Al-Queda in the eyes of its proponents is the organisation’s precious effort to delegitimise the regional regimes and thereby liberate Islamic nations from dependence on the West.

Viewed in this light, no place could have been more appropriate for the emergence of terrorist activities than the Middle East. In other words, new terrorism could in fact just have been a response to the ruin and misery prevalent in the Middle East. As an underlying reality, it is hard to find even one nation without territorial, political, and ethnic problems. Even within the nation-states we witness countless ethnic and religious fragmentations, which have now been fuelled by the new round of global interference such as the conduct of wars in Afghanis- tan and Iraq.
 
I absolutely believe in the separation of church and state. I believe anyone should be able to sell anything on any day/time. I believe government should be completely out of the marriage issue as well as any private store ought to be able to sell/not sell to whoever they want. I don't trust the tpp nafta or any other deals our government cuts behind closed doors. I believe the military is one of the only places we should be spending large amounts of tax dollars , without the massive ammounts spent on military we wouldn't have things like the cell phone and computers we're talking on now this technology only came about through huge government military contracts and has benefited us grestly! We should have the biggest baddest military on the planet bar none , no one would even dare take us on. These terrorists want a caliphate , they want sharia imposed worldwide they hate freedoms especially free strong women and fags. I have said I do not believe in giving police more power they're already not respecting our freedoms and protections afforded us in the bill of rights. I support war when it protects America and her allies and interests. I don't agree with being the police man of the world or holding up corrupt dictators or forcing our style of governance on another people. I hate welfare and think it should be done away with immediately!

So you don't believe in entrepreneurship? Would private entrepreneurs not have been able to come up with cell phones and computers without the military? Regardless, that just means we should fund the Army CECOM not the military as a whole. What does an infantryman have to do with the inventions of cell phones and computers?

We spent around $618billion on the military last year

"The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) measures annual military spending for most of the world's armed countries. According to SIPRI, the U.S. spent $618 billion on its military last year, more than three times the $171 billion budget of second place China. Based on SIPRI's 2013 data, these are the countries with the largest military budgets."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...countries-spending-most-on-military/12491639/

How do you justify spending so much on the military when we are in debt up to our ears? Cut military spending and slow the increase of the deficit if not reduce it outright. Our military is already large enough, more than enough, to police the world as we've been doing.

You want less police spending but more military spending bc the police already don't respect our freedoms. Who do you think will take over the police's role in that should the police not be enough......?

You don't want to be the policemen of the world and don't want to force our style governance on other people so why the need to spend excessive amounts of money on the military. This is what it's being used for now.

Sure government military contracts have benefited us to some degree but they've benefited the select few exponentially more.
 
There is no doubt that mistakes have been made on all sides , however the USA has been the greatest force for good all over the world for the last 100 yrs. We have made mistakes their are certainly men in our uniforms flying our flags that have committed atrocities no doubt man is flawed when you get many flawed men in war who watch their brothers in arms die there are going to be cases of terrible things that's war. However I believe we are the best most moral force for good bar nome no one else even comes close.
 
So you don't believe in entrepreneurship? Would private entrepreneurs not have been able to come up with cell phones and computers without the military? Regardless, that just means we should fund the Army CECOM not the military as a whole. What does an infantryman have to do with the inventions of cell phones and computers?

We spent around $618billion on the military last year

"The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) measures annual military spending for most of the world's armed countries. According to SIPRI, the U.S. spent $618 billion on its military last year, more than three times the $171 billion budget of second place China. Based on SIPRI's 2013 data, these are the countries with the largest military budgets."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...countries-spending-most-on-military/12491639/

How do you justify spending so much on the military when we are in debt up to our ears? Cut military spending and slow the increase of the deficit if not reduce it outright. Our military is already large enough, more than enough, to police the world as we've been doing.

You want less police spending but more military spending bc the police already don't respect our freedoms. Who do you think will take over the police's role in that should the police not be enough......?

You don't want to be the policemen of the world and don't want to force our style governance on other people so why the need to spend excessive amounts of money on the military. This is what it's being used for now.

Sure government military contracts have benefited us to some degree but they've benefited the select few exponentially more.
Of course I believe in entrepreneurship I'm a capitalist however we got a huge leap forward (private companies) with big government contracts in nasa mostly that jumped this technology ahead faster than it otherwise would have
 
So you don't believe in entrepreneurship? Would private entrepreneurs not have been able to come up with cell phones and computers without the military? Regardless, that just means we should fund the Army CECOM not the military as a whole. What does an infantryman have to do with the inventions of cell phones and computers?

We spent around $618billion on the military last year

"The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) measures annual military spending for most of the world's armed countries. According to SIPRI, the U.S. spent $618 billion on its military last year, more than three times the $171 billion budget of second place China. Based on SIPRI's 2013 data, these are the countries with the largest military budgets."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...countries-spending-most-on-military/12491639/

How do you justify spending so much on the military when we are in debt up to our ears? Cut military spending and slow the increase of the deficit if not reduce it outright. Our military is already large enough, more than enough, to police the world as we've been doing.

You want less police spending but more military spending bc the police already don't respect our freedoms. Who do you think will take over the police's role in that should the police not be enough......?

You don't want to be the policemen of the world and don't want to force our style governance on other people so why the need to spend excessive amounts of money on the military. This is what it's being used for now.

Sure government military contracts have benefited us to some degree but they've benefited the select few exponentially more.
We should have the biggest baddest military to keep the peace it's called peace through dominance. I want to move past mutually assured destruction to a point where everyone knows if they fuck with us they'll be annihilated and we'll still be here
 
We wouldn't have to worry about these lunatics if we had just stayed the fuck out of the Middle East. Military intervention and occupation in countries like this invited attacks on United States. These crazy bastards didn't just randomly come up with an idea to come all the way to the United States to kill Americans because of our wealth or our "freedoms". Military occupation and intervention in the Middle East, along with supporting certain groups and supporting Israel brought secular Islamic terrorism from the Middle East to the United States.
 
There is no doubt that mistakes have been made on all sides , however the USA has been the greatest force for good all over the world for the last 100 yrs. We have made mistakes their are certainly men in our uniforms flying our flags that have committed atrocities no doubt man is flawed when you get many flawed men in war who watch their brothers in arms die there are going to be cases of terrible things that's war. However I believe we are the best most moral force for good bar nome no one else even comes close.

I think this is more ideological than supported by history
 
We wouldn't have to worry about these lunatics if we had just stayed the fuck out of the Middle East. Military intervention and occupation in countries like this invited attacks on United States. These crazy bastards didn't just randomly come up with an idea to come all the way to the United States to kill Americans because of our wealth or our "freedoms". Military occupation and intervention in the Middle East, along with supporting certain groups and supporting Israel brought secular Islamic terrorism from the Middle East to the United States.
That's about it in a nutshell
 
Back
Top