Quote: (02-04-2015 07:32 PM)Grange Wrote:  

At the risk of sounding smug, I was one of those libertarians. I knew or read many others. That's one of the reasons I know there couldn't have been too few of us. I concede that most of the opposition to the war dried up when it became Obama's war-implying that most people who opposed the Iraq War were really just opposed to Bush-but not all of us. I agree about the Ron Paul supporters. New England probably just picked up a million new fans.

Also Stalin was in charge of a state; he could and should have done things differently, but he still had to do some things. Going to war or not is a different kind of consideration. You don't have to do it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your Trotsky analogy.

Except there are always going to be "too few" of you guys because like the Trots, libertarians are in de facto exile. One could say the same thing about your Constitution Party cousins or the Green Party. If this country were in any way, shape or form interested in having a democracy as outlined in the Constitution, libertarians would be a force to be reckoned with. As evidenced by the posts in this thread and by what's happening in the middle east (again and again), the US is about and will continue to be about getting involved in other regions.

So, the machine marches on (not just our machine, but our "allies" as well) while libertarians and greens are exiled from the process and talk about "Oh, we should do this," or, "Who says this (insert foreign adventure here) is in 'our interest?'"

It's a shitty state of affairs both at home and abroad and I don't see how it can get any better.

Just out of curiosity, who here has been to Israel? It's a beautiful country, usually I go 2-3 times per year for either work or vacation (I'm not Jewish, by the way). Some of the hottest girls on this planet.

Criticizing it and taking some theories seriously is always a challenge, because at the end of the day, they created a prosperous society out of nothing and are infinitely more capable of improving the lives of people than Islamic countries. Even going to Jordan or Lebanon is like night and day. I'm always treated well and the Jews take great care in protecting religious sites important to my faith - the same can't be said for other groups.

Quote:Quote:

In October 1985, specialist operators from the KGB's Group "A" (Alpha) were dispatched to Beirut, Lebanon. The Kremlin had been informed of the kidnapping of four Soviet diplomats by the militant group, the Islamic Liberation Organization (a radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood). It was believed that this was retaliation for the Soviet support of Syrian involvement in the Lebanese Civil War.[9] However, by the time Alpha arrived, one of the hostages had already been killed. It is alleged that through a network of supporting KGB operatives, members of the task force identified each of the perpetrators involved in the crisis; once these had been identified, the team began to take relatives of these militants as hostages. Following the standard Soviet policy of not negotiating with terrorists, some of the hostages taken by Alpha were dismembered, and their body parts sent to the militants. The warning was clear: more would follow unless the remaining hostages were released immediately. The show of force worked, and for a period of 20 years no Soviet or Russian officials were taken captive, until the 2006 abduction and murder of four Russian embassy staff in Iraq.

Jesus Christ.
It's ethically dubious but the results speak for themselves.
The Russians don't fuck around.

Quote: (02-06-2015 01:21 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I don't want to misrepresent what you've written here, so I'm going to ask you this for clarification purposes.

Do you believe Israel created ISIS?

They benefit greatly from the existence and actions of ISIS.

That much is obvious.

An unstable surrounding region, justifies their massive military production. They have expansionist aspirations too(1967). All the turmoil surrounding their borders suits their agenda perfectly.

Scorpion said:

Quote:Quote:

I don't believe ISIS was directly "created" by Israel

Great! Because I was going to call my last post, "Countdown To Backpedaling" but decided against it.

The only question I have for you is, how do you explain the post where you stated, and I quote:

Quote:Quote:

And now you know why Israel would do something so apparently "stupid" as unleashing ISIS right next door. They created a monster they intend to destroy, a monster the world will demand be destroyed

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-44785-...#pid949748

When speaking of the origins of ISIS, here:

Quote:Quote:

Obviously, chief amongst these parties is Israel.

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-44785-...#pid949450

Quote:Quote:

it's very obvious that ISIS is being supported by one or more states. It's also obvious that Israel is one of those states

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-44785-...#pid949450


...................

It would be really easy to pick apart Scorpion's arguments, because he writes well, but is essentially all over the map. Maybe if I have some free time tonight I will go all lawyer on him and use his own statements to indict his rather dubious position.

Farmageddon, I don't know how else to say this, but I have no idea who are you are, and couldn't possibly give less of a shit about your pedantic attempts to deconstruct my arguments word-by-word. It's entirely obvious that you're just another one of these Jews or shabbos goys who pops out of the woodwork whenever anything remotely critical about Jews or Israel is written. You're not the first and I'm sure you won't be the last. Only three-hundred-something posts since 2011, but now you want to get into a heated debate all of a sudden? It's entirely transparent. Do you really think people don't notice this? I mean, you've even been stalking through my posting history in an effort to paint me as an anti-Semite for daring to criticize Israeli foreign policy. You're a blatant shill.

If you want to spend your time forum lawyering against my posts, well, I guess everyone needs a hobby. In the meantime, as far as the mods allow, I will continue to throw down truth bombs whenever I please on controversial topics, including Israel. If that works you into a tizzy, maybe try some yoga for stress relief.

Quote: (02-06-2015 12:13 PM)Hardy Daytona Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

In October 1985, specialist operators from the KGB's Group "A" (Alpha) were dispatched to Beirut, Lebanon. The Kremlin had been informed of the kidnapping of four Soviet diplomats by the militant group, the Islamic Liberation Organization (a radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood). It was believed that this was retaliation for the Soviet support of Syrian involvement in the Lebanese Civil War.[9] However, by the time Alpha arrived, one of the hostages had already been killed. It is alleged that through a network of supporting KGB operatives, members of the task force identified each of the perpetrators involved in the crisis; once these had been identified, the team began to take relatives of these militants as hostages. Following the standard Soviet policy of not negotiating with terrorists, some of the hostages taken by Alpha were dismembered, and their body parts sent to the militants. The warning was clear: more would follow unless the remaining hostages were released immediately. The show of force worked, and for a period of 20 years no Soviet or Russian officials were taken captive, until the 2006 abduction and murder of four Russian embassy staff in Iraq.

Jesus Christ.
It's ethically dubious but the results speak for themselves.
The Russians don't fuck around.

And to think this story was well known back in the 80s. In the Middle East in particular you should never act of of anything but a position of strength.

Quote: (02-06-2015 12:13 PM)Hardy Daytona Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

In October 1985, specialist operators from the KGB's Group "A" (Alpha) were dispatched to Beirut, Lebanon. The Kremlin had been informed of the kidnapping of four Soviet diplomats by the militant group, the Islamic Liberation Organization (a radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood). It was believed that this was retaliation for the Soviet support of Syrian involvement in the Lebanese Civil War.[9] However, by the time Alpha arrived, one of the hostages had already been killed. It is alleged that through a network of supporting KGB operatives, members of the task force identified each of the perpetrators involved in the crisis; once these had been identified, the team began to take relatives of these militants as hostages. Following the standard Soviet policy of not negotiating with terrorists, some of the hostages taken by Alpha were dismembered, and their body parts sent to the militants. The warning was clear: more would follow unless the remaining hostages were released immediately. The show of force worked, and for a period of 20 years no Soviet or Russian officials were taken captive, until the 2006 abduction and murder of four Russian embassy staff in Iraq.

Jesus Christ.
It's ethically dubious but the results speak for themselves.
The Russians don't fuck around.

The person who quoted that cut out part of the reference on purpose. But hey, what does truth matter anyway? It's a kewl story, go torture!!11!!
Here is the full reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spetsnaz#Th...age_crisis

Quote:Quote:

The Beirut hostage crisis[edit]
In October 1985, specialist operators from the KGB's Group "A" (Alpha) were dispatched to Beirut, Lebanon. The Kremlin had been informed of the kidnapping of four Soviet diplomats by the militant group, the Islamic Liberation Organization (a radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood). It was believed that this was retaliation for the Soviet support of Syrian involvement in the Lebanese Civil War.[9] However, by the time Alpha arrived, one of the hostages had already been killed. It is alleged that through a network of supporting KGB operatives, members of the task force identified each of the perpetrators involved in the crisis; once these had been identified, the team began to take relatives of these militants as hostages. Following the standard Soviet policy of not negotiating with terrorists, some of the hostages taken by Alpha were dismembered, and their body parts sent to the militants. The warning was clear: more would follow unless the remaining hostages were released immediately. The show of force worked, and for a period of 20 years no Soviet or Russian officials were taken captive, until the 2006 abduction and murder of four Russian embassy staff in Iraq.

However, the veracity of this story has been brought into question. Another version says that the release of the Soviet hostages was the result of extensive diplomatic negotiations with the spiritual leader of Hezbollah, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, who appealed to King Hussein of Jordan, and the leaders of Libya and Iran, to use their influence on the kidnappers.[10]

So, the Jews control our media, our politicians, pretty much the entire US foreign policy, ISIS, and now they have me shilling for them?!

Holy shit! The conspiracy really does run deep. I wasn't even aware that I was working for the Israelis until you pointed it out. And does anyone else see the irony in that Scorpion believes everyone is brainwashed by the Jews but is himself a true believer in what is essentially a Hellenized sect of Judaism, ie Christianity? This surely can't be lost on you guys. Perhaps the conspiracy goes deeper than anyone thought...all the way to Scorpions reflection in the mirror!

@TheWastelander

Do you see what I'm saying? Even in a post where he is simply insulting me - it still goes back to the Jews somehow...and you see that I posted a link where he accused another poster of working for the Israelis and now it is me. Seriously?!

The real reason I remember you Scorpion is because I find your analysis of foreign policy so incredibly bizarre that it stands out to me the few times every couple of months I visit this site.

Oh, and by the way, that paper that you based your entire argument on, that you claimed was from an "Israeli Military Journal" was actually an article first printed in the magazine of the World Zionist Organization and has absolutely jack-shit to do with Israeli foreign policy. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Now, let me go convert all these sheckles to dollars. I'm saving up for a new dreidel.

Quote: (02-06-2015 10:54 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Quote: (02-06-2015 10:29 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

Don't be scared. Any chick that can handle an AK= 8/10 WB.

Orly?

Would you bang this one?



How about this one?



This one?



This'un?



Really?



Even this one?

1) WB. She'd be cute if she grew her hair.
2) WB. Arab fighter flag.
3) WB. African fighter flag.
4) In five years, if she's still alive.
5) WB. Eighties hair flag.
6) It's a trick She only handles AKs to get people to ban them. -5/10 WNB.

Dupe

Quote: (02-06-2015 05:18 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

The real reason I remember you Scorpion is because I find your analysis of foreign policy so incredibly bizarre that it stands out to me the few times every couple of months I visit this site.

In that case, I would encourage you to reduce your visits here to a once-annual basis. Be assured that your contributions won't be missed, nor your absence even noted.

Yeah, um, I'm not taking sides in this fight because A) I don't care and B) even if I did, I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion.

But, scorpion, you might want to rethink speaking for the whole damn forum.

Quote: (02-06-2015 05:50 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Yeah, um, I'm not taking sides in this fight because A) I don't care and B) even if I did, I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion.

But, scorpion, you might want to rethink speaking for the whole damn forum.

Fair enough. I can only speak for myself, of course, and I have no idea who this guy is, nor can I remember ever seeing him post before until he shows up here and starts stalking my post history and accusing me of anti-semitism because I critiqued Israeli foreign policy. But for your sake, I will clarify.

Farmageddon, weambulence may or may not miss your contributions and/or notice your absence.

The rest of the forum can weigh in on this most pressing topic individually as they please.

Quote: (02-06-2015 06:04 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The rest of the forum can weigh in on this most pressing topic individually as they please.

I like lamp.

Quote: (02-04-2015 01:44 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

I'm almost delighted that it seems this board has woken up to the brutality of these inhuman barbarians. When I advocated total war against these types of 'organizations' or whatever you want to call him on this forum a couple of years ago, I was met with an almost universal condemnation. I was told 'I was a chickenhawk' more times than I could count. Now it seems we have made a complete 180. It reminds me when Churchill said America only does what works, but not before trying everything else first.

Quote: (02-04-2015 02:11 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

We have to make the consequences of their actions so terrible that people won't even dream of joining ISIS. And if they do dream of it, they will immediately wake up and go to the nearest American embassy to apologize.

Wow you are just itching to slit some hadji throats, go ahead and fill in your application here
http://www.1naef.com/#!plan/cjg9

Judging by the chickenhawkish tone of your posts I don't think you meet the prerequisites of relevant military service and overseas deployment. Do not despair there are two other ways to get into this fight that you seem so enthusiastic about.

1.

Quote:Quote:

If it were me, and I were returning to Iraq — this time to fight ISIS as a volunteer — I would fly into Sulaymania, locate the closest PUK base, and offer my services as an American volunteer Peshmerga fighter.

Read more: http://sofrep.com/37456/go-fight-isis/#ixzz3RC7MJhRg

You probably need to bring something to to the table for the PUK to accept you if you don't have any military training, like emergency medicine skills.

2.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Lions...0627860127
This group accepts anyone and has only one requirement, courage.

Are you going to put in your leave authorization form with your commander at JIDF and get yourself to the frontline? Or are you just a chickenhawk like everyone said?

If you limit discussion of our foreign policy and military responses to only those who have served or are serving in the military then, by definition, we are living in a military dictatorship.

Now, if you are OK with that, that's fine, but just have the courage to say that is what you actually want.

Not to mention, limiting the discussion to only military vets completely violates the Constitution in the sense that the supreme military command is placed in.....wait for it....CIVILIAN HANDS. Our commander in chief is the President, who is a civilian. The reason we have this law in place is to protect against exactly what you seem to be advocating - a military dictatorship.

Quote: (02-08-2015 07:50 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

If you limit discussion of our foreign policy and military responses to only those who have served or are serving in the military then, by definition, we are living in a military dictatorship.

Now, if you are OK with that, that's fine, but just have the courage to say that is what you actually want.

Not to mention, limiting the discussion to only military vets completely violates the Constitution in the sense that the supreme military command is placed in.....wait for it....CIVILIAN HANDS. Our commander in chief is the President, who is a civilian. The reason we have this law in place is to protect against exactly what you seem to be advocating - a military dictatorship.

Pussy, if you're not doing your part and joining the mobile infantry, you don't get citizenship. Long live the United Citizens Federation!

Quote: (02-08-2015 07:50 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

If you limit discussion of our foreign policy and military responses to only those who have served or are serving in the military then, by definition, we are living in a military dictatorship.

Now, if you are OK with that, that's fine, but just have the courage to say that is what you actually want.

Not to mention, limiting the discussion to only military vets completely violates the Constitution in the sense that the supreme military command is placed in.....wait for it....CIVILIAN HANDS. Our commander in chief is the President, who is a civilian. The reason we have this law in place is to protect against exactly what you seem to be advocating - a military dictatorship.

I, for one, only lend credibility to combat veterans who are warmongers. What could possibly go wrong?

Obama to seek Congressional approval for limited ground combat. If world history is any indicator, a small number of troops never turns into a big number of troops.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/...mic-state/

Quote:Quote:

President Obama on Wednesday opened the door to "limited" ground combat operations against the Islamic State, as he asked Congress to formally authorize military force against the terrorist network.

The president, in a proposed resolution and a letter to Congress, underscored the "grave threat" posed by ISIS.

"If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Obama said.

The proposal includes limitations that would bar "enduring offensive ground combat operations" and let the authorization lapse after three years. The letter from Obama says the authorization would not allow "long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those" conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the request includes no restrictions on where U.S. forces could pursue the threat. And while the current military campaign centers on coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, the proposal clearly allows U.S. ground troops to engage in limited circumstances.

"The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership," Obama wrote in his letter to Congress. "It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces."

Quote: (02-11-2015 12:11 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Obama to seek Congressional approval for limited ground combat. If world history is any indicator, a small number of troops never turns into a big number of troops.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/...mic-state/

Quote:Quote:

President Obama on Wednesday opened the door to "limited" ground combat operations against the Islamic State, as he asked Congress to formally authorize military force against the terrorist network.

The president, in a proposed resolution and a letter to Congress, underscored the "grave threat" posed by ISIS.

"If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Obama said.

The proposal includes limitations that would bar "enduring offensive ground combat operations" and let the authorization lapse after three years. The letter from Obama says the authorization would not allow "long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those" conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the request includes no restrictions on where U.S. forces could pursue the threat. And while the current military campaign centers on coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, the proposal clearly allows U.S. ground troops to engage in limited circumstances.

"The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership," Obama wrote in his letter to Congress. "It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces."

I saw this coming from a mile away; from the very first time ISIS started rapidly gaining territory last year. I think the Obama administration is still going to try and get rid of Assad.

I was just looking at the 5 year trend on Halliburton stock. I think now would be an excellent time to buy.

Quote: (02-11-2015 04:29 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

I was just looking at the 5 year trend on Halliburton stock. I think now would be an excellent time to buy.

If you're talking about war contracting, they spun off KBR years ago. If you're talking about oil, it's a long-term winner, but I'd go for the oil majors like Exxon, Total, Shell, Statoil, etc.

Quote: (02-11-2015 12:26 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

Quote: (02-11-2015 12:11 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Obama to seek Congressional approval for limited ground combat. If world history is any indicator, a small number of troops never turns into a big number of troops.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/...mic-state/

Quote:Quote:

President Obama on Wednesday opened the door to "limited" ground combat operations against the Islamic State, as he asked Congress to formally authorize military force against the terrorist network.

The president, in a proposed resolution and a letter to Congress, underscored the "grave threat" posed by ISIS.

"If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Obama said.

The proposal includes limitations that would bar "enduring offensive ground combat operations" and let the authorization lapse after three years. The letter from Obama says the authorization would not allow "long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those" conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the request includes no restrictions on where U.S. forces could pursue the threat. And while the current military campaign centers on coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, the proposal clearly allows U.S. ground troops to engage in limited circumstances.

"The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership," Obama wrote in his letter to Congress. "It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces."

I saw this coming from a mile away; from the very first time ISIS started rapidly gaining territory last year. I think the Obama administration is still going to try and get rid of Assad.

This is a good unconventional warfare mission. Best would be a few Army Special Forces accompanying Iraqi forces, including Peshmerga. Working in coordination with Iranian SF led by the wily Sulimani.

I say forget getting rid of Assad, but the Powers that Be want to take down Iran eventually, so Assad is Step #1. Insane.