• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Burning down the house

Are you for US militarism burning down the house?

  • Yes, I am a militarist and I don't care that US militarism threatens Earth in two major ways.

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • No, I am not a militarist. I understand that the US cannot continue with its domination paradigm.

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • Total voters
    5
A

Antiwar

Green Party progressive
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
27,138
Reaction score
4,765
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
US militarism is very probably the number one threat to 'burning down the house,' as in making Earth a living hell, in two major ways.

1. Nuclear war. The US is the most militaristic government on Earth, by far. Russia has a few more operable nuclear weapons in its arsenal than the US does, but the US military is everywhere, and the difference between the two stupid nuclear arsenals doesn't make a difference.

2. The US military burns an inordinate amount of fossil fuels to play world police and world executioner.


A. Then there are the hypocritical cries of "Russia invaded Ukraine!" Overlooking the utter hypocrisy, for now, the issue becomes: How should international conflicts be resolved? The answer to that is: As peacefully as possible. That would mean that humans would actually have an effective international justice system. The US doesn't want that because the US wants to be the boss.


Are you on the side of US militarism, or would you prefer for US to not burn down the house? Those are very much the two choices.
 
Michael Cole said:
One of two Talking Heads songs I like
Click to expand...

It'd be an excellent song to hear as the climate kicks our asses and/or as nuclear fireballs erupt.
 
Michael Cole said:
One of two Talking Heads songs I like
Click to expand...
According to @Antiwar there are 46 nations we need to go after for their fuel consumption before addressing the US military. I’m not sure who #39 is but I think we should start a thread about why they are burning down the house. You?
 
phoenix2020 said:
According to @Antiwar there are 46 nations we need to go after for their fuel consumption before addressing the US military. I’m not sure who #39 is but I think we should start a thread about why they are burning down the house. You?
Click to expand...

So the US military using fossil fuels/resources for violence is okay because some other countries supposedly use more of them for living.
 
Antiwar said:
US militarism is very probably the number one threat to 'burning down the house,' as in making Earth a living hell, in two major ways.

1. Nuclear war. The US is the most militaristic government on Earth, by far. Russia has a few more operable nuclear weapons in its arsenal than the US does, but the US military is everywhere, and the difference between the two stupid nuclear arsenals doesn't make a difference.

2. The US military burns an inordinate amount of fossil fuels to play world police and world executioner.


A. Then there are the hypocritical cries of "Russia invaded Ukraine!" Overlooking the utter hypocrisy, for now, the issue becomes: How should international conflicts be resolved? The answer to that is: As peacefully as possible. That would mean that humans would actually have an effective international justice system. The US doesn't want that because the US wants to be the boss.


Are you on the side of US militarism, or would you prefer for US to not burn down the house? Those are very much the two choices.
Click to expand...


I am against anything military except defense of the homeland.

In the meantime there are a lot of bad guys out there who want USA and allies like Canada dead!

Putin thought he could repeat his blitzgrieg of years ago and snag sea shores as a result, improving the cost of shipping Russia's goods. There have been thousands of reports of looting by Russians as well as rape and outright robbery.
To defend an ally is not MAKING war, it is defense. The Ukrainians have not crossed a Russian border even though they can and are now pushing the Russians back to their own land. That is now advancing war, but defense.

At this point, anyone calling for a halt right now is probably an agent of the Putin conspiracy. A cease fire now would hand him what he wanted, ocean front on his south shore.

No, for the sake of generations to come we need to halt Putin first, then talk about arms reduction. Even then I have learned to distrust Russian outright
 
phoenix2020 said:
According to @Antiwar there are 46 nations we need to go after for their fuel consumption before addressing the US military. I’m not sure who #39 is but I think we should start a thread about why they are burning down the house. You?
Click to expand...
Take me to the river. ;)

Yeah, I have no clue.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I am against anything military except defense of the homeland.

In the meantime there are a lot of bad guys out there who want USA and allies like Canada dead!

Putin thought he could repeat his blitzgrieg of years ago and snag sea shores as a result, improving the cost of shipping Russia's goods. There have been thousands of reports of looting by Russians as well as rape and outright robbery.
To defend an ally is not MAKING war, it is defense. The Ukrainians have not crossed a Russian border even though they can ad are now pushing the Russians back to their own land. That is now advancing war, but defense.

At this point, anyone calling for a halt right now is probably an agent of the Putin conspiracy. A cease fire now would hand him what he wanted, ocean front on his south shore.

No, for the sake of generations to come we need to halt Putin first, then talk about arms reduction. Even then I have learned to distrust Russian outright
Click to expand...

You think that the US and Canada would be attacked if it weren't for the US's violence? The US was attacked 21 years ago because of its violence.

P****, then China. The US isn't reducing its stupid barbaric militarism anytime soon. We're set to suffer, especially due to US militarism.
 
Antiwar said:
You think that the US and Canada would be attacked if it weren't for the US's violence? The US was attacked 21 years ago because of its violence.

P****, then China. The US isn't reducing its stupid barbaric militarism anytime soon. We're set to suffer, especially due to US militarism.
Click to expand...
No, the US is not “set to suffer”.

Provide a source for that claim.
 
BirdinHand said:
No, the US is not “set to suffer”.

Provide a source for that claim.
Click to expand...

The human race is set to suffer. Environmental collapse and/or nuclear war. No citation needed- this is common knowledge.
 
Why ask us to give an opinion when you have already spoon fed us the answer that is acceptable to you?

wonder_40x40.gif
 
Antiwar said:
The human race is set to suffer. Environmental collapse and/or nuclear war. No citation needed- this is common knowledge.
Click to expand...
And you’re blaming everything on US “militarism”

Seems logical
 
Antiwar said:
You think that the US and Canada would be attacked if it weren't for the US's violence? The US was attacked 21 years ago because of its violence.

P****, then China. The US isn't reducing its stupid barbaric militarism anytime soon. We're set to suffer, especially due to US militarism.
Click to expand...
Why ask us our opinion if you are just going to repeat the same speech you gave in your opening monologue?
 
BirdinHand said:
And you’re blaming everything on US “militarism”

Seems logical
Click to expand...

I didn't blame everything on US militarism. I said "US militarism is very probably the number one threat to 'burning down the house,' as in making Earth a living hell, in two major ways."
 
Antiwar said:
I didn't blame everything on US militarism. I said "US militarism is very probably the number one threat to 'burning down the house,' as in making Earth a living hell, in two major ways."
Click to expand...
And yet, when asked for a source to back that claim, you don’t have one to provide.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Why ask us our opinion if you are just going to repeat the same speech you gave in your opening monologue?
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for opinions, I posted a poll.
 
BirdinHand said:
And yet, when asked for a source to back that claim, you don’t have one to provide.
Click to expand...

Are environmental collapse and nuclear war not humanity's most serious problems?
 
Antiwar said:
I didn't ask for opinions, I posted a poll.
Click to expand...
A poll where the questions are "loaded" and clearly indicate your political philosophy. I mean seriously, look how loaded your questions are:
I don't care that US militarism threatens Earth in two major ways. In short, if we don't see the world like you do, it means we "don't care."
I understand that the US cannot continue with its domination paradigm. Who invaded Ukraine? The U.S.? You provide an option that is already slanted and doesn't allow for differing opinions, so, you are trying to force us into a choice between "we don't care" and "we agree that the US has a domination paradigm".
That is SO loaded, no one can answer that honestly because it is meant to insult our intelligence. So I prefer to not answer your poll because the conditions you speak of has a lot of nuances (and aren't SO cut and dry as you make them) and should allow different points of view - something you aren't ready to accept by your wording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom