• 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!

Calling it Treason

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By Jeffrey T. Brown
September 2, 2013


We stand on the brink of an illegal exercise of military power in a part of the world we have no need to be in, except that we have a president who purposefully keeps us there by suppressing our own development of energy resources and embroiling us in their internecine warfare. We could have walked away from the Middle East already and left them to their own savagery, but the president insists that we remain inextricably tied to their historical need to kill each other so that we can overpay for oil, both monetarily and with American lives. Thus, as technology enables us to break free of dependence upon Middle East oil, our president bends over backwards to ensure that never happens. What sort of leader purposefully compels his country and its people to participate in practices and policies that are detrimental to their safety and survival?

Even worse, when he can be shown to have chosen sides, his allegiance rests with terrorists and psychopaths. His affinity for Islam and its practitioners, as seen in the influence he grants them in the formation and direction of U.S. policy, is well known. Outspoken detractors of the United States and proponents of worldwide Sharia are welcome guests at the White House. They have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. They direct the content of discourse and training about who and what they are. Our blindness toward their hatred and objectives, and perhaps our administration's shared stake in that hatred of the United States, was manifested in the obscene spectacle of a Muslim cleric insulting and damning our dead special forces troops at their own memorial service. That event was a natural consequence of the sort of brainless political correctness that pervades the left. So too was what Nidal Hasan did at Fort Hood. Such "tolerance" is a top-down phenomena.

[Excerpt]


Read more:
Articles: Calling it Treason

While these are evident and true, Progressives continue to follow Obama blindly. Isn't something amiss with the ideology of Progressive Marxism?
 
We stand on the brink of an illegal exercise of military power in a part of the world we have no need to be in.

The Hypocrisy is mind blowing. That article would never have been here had it been about Iraq.

While these are evident and true, Progressives continue to follow Obama blindly. Isn't something amiss with the ideology of Progressive Marxism?

Obama is not a Marxist. He may be a Progressive but not a Marxist.
 
Anyone who claims to follow the Constitution should know that treason is a very specifically defined thing, of course I generally see that the people most eager to talk about the Constitution know the least about it.
 
Anyone who joins are or is in the US military and follows its official orders is committing treason. Either you're with the country or you're with the government.
 
By Jeffrey T. Brown
September 2, 2013
We stand on the brink of an illegal exercise of military power in a part of the world we have no need to be in, except that we have a president who purposefully keeps us there by suppressing our own development of energy resources and embroiling us in their internecine warfare. We could have walked away from the Middle East already and left them to their own savagery, but the president insists that we remain inextricably tied to their historical need to kill each other so that we can overpay for oil, both monetarily and with American lives. Thus, as technology enables us to break free of dependence upon Middle East oil, our president bends over backwards to ensure that never happens. What sort of leader purposefully compels his country and its people to participate in practices and policies that are detrimental to their safety and survival?
Even worse, when he can be shown to have chosen sides, his allegiance rests with terrorists and psychopaths. His affinity for Islam and its practitioners, as seen in the influence he grants them in the formation and direction of U.S. policy, is well known. Outspoken detractors of the United States and proponents of worldwide Sharia are welcome guests at the White House. They have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. They direct the content of discourse and training about who and what they are. Our blindness toward their hatred and objectives, and perhaps our administration's shared stake in that hatred of the United States, was manifested in the obscene spectacle of a Muslim cleric insulting and damning our dead special forces troops at their own memorial service. That event was a natural consequence of the sort of brainless political correctness that pervades the left. So too was what Nidal Hasan did at Fort Hood. Such "tolerance" is a top-down phenomena.
[Excerpt]
Read more:
Articles: Calling it Treason
While these are evident and true, Progressives continue to follow Obama blindly. Isn't something amiss with the ideology of Progressive Marxism?

Sorry, but that does not convince me. I do not believe you can run away from your problems. These ones will follow us and catch up even if we are energy independent. It is not the region that ist the Problem, you see. It is the structure of international security and the the direction in which it is developing. If it were only the Middle East, it would hardly be a problem.
 
Obama does seem to side with the radical Islam. In Iran when there was an attempted revolt against the Muslim gov Obama did nothing, In Libya and Egypt where Islam wanted power Obama helped them get it. Now in Syria he wants to be Alquiada's air force.
 
The Hypocrisy is mind blowing. That article would never have been here had it been about Iraq.



Obama is not a Marxist. He may be a Progressive but not a Marxist.

I voiced my objections to the Iraq war on AOL during 2002, and 2003 and also included the actions of the Clinton administration that led up to the invasion. That has been rehashed time and time again. Rather than to focus on the problem at hand. Sounding like a five year old claiming Johnny did the same thing so that Jimmy would now be justified in doing the same wrong doing.
 
I voiced my objections to the Iraq war on AOL during 2002, and 2003 and also included the actions of the Clinton administration that led up to the invasion. That has been rehashed time and time again. Rather than to focus on the problem at hand. Sounding like a five year old claiming Johnny did the same thing so that Jimmy would now be justified in doing the same wrong doing.

It was a criticism of the article, not yourself.
 
Sorry, but that does not convince me. I do not believe you can run away from your problems. These ones will follow us and catch up even if we are energy independent. It is not the region that ist the Problem, you see. It is the structure of international security and the the direction in which it is developing. If it were only the Middle East, it would hardly be a problem.
How is it running away and how is it OUR problem?
 
How is it running away and how is it OUR problem?

We cannot run away from the shifting relative power and atomic proliferation in international affairs. If we do not solve the problems deriving thereof, they will certainly involve us in ways we will not like at all.
 
We cannot run away from the shifting relative power and atomic proliferation in international affairs. If we do not solve the problems deriving thereof, they will certainly involve us in ways we will not like at all.

Explain. I dont think this conflict fits your parameters.
 
Explain. I dont think this conflict fits your parameters.

The connection is via R2P which was introduced in order to legitimize an international system of security and its enforcement. It was argued that without legitimacy in the eyes of populations it would be impossible to internalize security at a supra national level. This is deemed necessary because multipolar systems are instabil and have historically always lead to regularly occurring smaller and large scale wars. As MAD does not work well, where there are more than two players, we need to find a stabil international system or face nuclear war. That in a nutshell was the result of analysis and the debate in the 1990s. The UN took the first major step by introducing R2P in 2005. At the time, I was astounded, that so many autocracies signed on and took it as a sort of confirmation of how important everybody thinks this to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom