Russia Mobilizes Against Turkey, Hizballah Reinforces Assad

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem is that lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging. The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars, and ignoring that casts aside the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century. With the factor of modern technology the world is too small to allow a major power to ignore world events. Isolation is not a luxury that nations will again enjoy and policies that pursue it are in reality policies of postponement.

Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.

Actually the case isn't nearly as hard to make as you seem to think. As I've said before, those who do not understand this have missed the biggest lesson of the 20th century... Let me explain:

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point they would have had a qualitative edge in weaponry as the industrial sector of the German war machine was not yet at peak production. While it's possible that for some unknown reason Germany may have been able to inflict more damage to the allies with a less developed military, it's much more likely that intervention at this point of qualitative military advantage for the allied powers would have saved the lives of countless civilians and service people.

The point is simple. If conflict seems likely because enemies of a man or state proclaim their hatred and lust for violence against that man or state, action should be taken at a point of strategic advantage. This may come before an enemy acts in which case the action taken is preemptive. If it is deemed that a greater advantage may come at some point in the future it may be wiser to pursue a policy of postponement. To pursue postponement while such an enemy is gaining relative strength is foolish and will likely cost resources, lives, or both to correct, if such a mistake is correctable.

This is why intervention is both wise and necessary in many circumstances. Both preemption and postponement may require some form of intervention...

I'd address the rest of your post if you'd address the issue of blowback and spreading anti-American sentiment.

I'm not sure why you think I'm interested in having you address my posts, but since it's easy to repeat what has been said before I'll re-explain the flaw in your thinking...

What you consider to be blow back and anti-American sentiment is in reality the adaptation of Islam's violent and supremacist nature to fit the circumstances of our time. Their proclaimed motivations are less credible than Bush's stated goal of preventing Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction prior to the Iraq war, but as an example of how a person's words can differ from the real cause of their actions, I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?

WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)

Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.

[GabonX]

Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?

I do

WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)

Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.

And this tangent constitutes a red herring because it argues against a position I haven't taken, that being I've made a comparison between the state of things in Syria and Germany under Hitler. I mentioned the Third Reich only as an example of when earlier intervention would have likely saved lives to illustrate this kind of situation exists, not to say Syria is the same today.

You've committed fallacies with your false assertion towards me here, and in this post you've denied the antecedent and committed false pretense in the first two sentences respectively. I could find more examples of your looseness in this thread, but it takes too much time to illustrate it all...

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.

I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.


My purposes here have been to share information, and later to defend the position that taking an active role in world affairs can and sometimes does achieve more desirable outcome against you're blanketed overcompensating assertions. I did not draw parallels between Syria's current state and the Third Reich as it's good policy to let Assad's regime and the rebels bleed each other. But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things? What about Israel?

We need leaders capable of making decisions based on whether action or inaction appears most prudent instead of doing nothing by policy when circumstance requires otherwise.

[saxitoxin]

But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things?

I am intrigued you're taking the side of the ultra-Islamist party running Turkey over the secular party running Syria.

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

- Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

SYRIA (supported by Saxi)
"We don't want a Beard-ocracy."

- Lubanah Mushaweh, Ba'ath Party (Syria)

the beautiful first family of Syria celebrate Zeim's 2nd birthday - no burkas allowed

[2dimes]

Edit: I hate doing them once it's too late and you end up with the sign at the bottom but I had to add the "T" to event there that sentence was driving me silly.

"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

- Naim Köse, Justice & Development Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

That should be a T-shirt but these days you'd probably have to be at an American Christian event to wear it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?

I do

WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)

Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.

And this tangent constitutes a red herring because it argues against a position I haven't taken, that being I've made a comparison between the state of things in Syria and Germany under Hitler. I mentioned the Third Reich only as an example of when earlier intervention would have likely saved lives to illustrate this kind of situation exists, not to say Syria is the same today.

You've committed fallacies with your false assertion towards me here, and in this post you've denied the antecedent and committed false pretense in the first two sentences respectively. I could find more examples of your looseness in this thread, but it takes too much time to illustrate it all...

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.

I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.

I understand that you're incapable of dealing with logical positions that counter yours, and of course surrounding yourself in groupthink is the cheaper way to go, but if you're unwilling to address the flaws in your position, then you'll forever be a glad bearer of confirmation bias and exceptional stupidity. Congratulations.

You've completely failed to understand incentives, rules of the games, and how people perceive the deaths of their friends from US bombs. It's okay, Gabon. There's plenty like you that hardly engage in any understanding. They're like you on the Internet, but hardly in think tanks and the Pentagon. You're just a tool of the State, spouting off tired rhetoric. Enjoy your measly status in the world outside of US politics and policymaking.

My purposes here have been to share information, and later to defend the position that taking an active role in world affairs can and sometimes does achieve more desirable outcome against you're blanketed overcompensating assertions. I did not draw parallels between Syria's current state and the Third Reich as it's good policy to let Assad's regime and the rebels bleed each other. But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things? What about Israel?

If those were your actual purposes, then you've failed miserably. You've been hardcore and absolute in asserting that intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases to avoid imagined consequences. You don't even understand the gaps of your imagination while doing so, which is evident from your inability to actually read those who question your stance.

This isn't a debate for you. It's another opportunity for you to stand on a podium and spout your nonsense. The federal government is not interested in you holding a serious job in their circles because you cannot think critically. You lack the skill and knowledge.

We need leaders capable of making decisions based on whether action or inaction appears most prudent instead of doing nothing by policy when circumstance requires otherwise.

By policy, you mean imagination.

[GabonX]

I understand that you're incapable of dealing with logical positions that counter yours

The problem is that the logical positions that supposedly counter mine are demonstrably false, or counter positions which I haven't actually taken.

An example of the first type that I referenced occurred when I took the position that:

Lack of intervention at times can be damaging as the path of isolation led the US to be drawn into two world wars.

Saxi responded with evidence that the US may not have been neutral prior to the deceleration of the first world war, to which you responded that my position was "completely undermined."

The progression of this logic is demonstrably false as the following formula shows:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

Instead of recognizing the flaw in this and reflecting on how you might improve, you've ignored everything and continued as though nothing was wrong as we all often criticize Symmetry for. You and Saxi then go on to attempt to discredit me by claiming I've taken positions which I haven't, or claimed my statements were absolute when they are not.

I almost want to thank Saxi for making this so easy to illustrate with the following:

But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things?

I am intrigued you're taking the side of the ultra-Islamist party running Turkey over the secular party running Syria.

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)

He follows this with a picture of an Indian Muslim he claims is "some Turk" and another of warlord and dictator Bashar Assad with his wife and children (presented as though having a wife and children disqualifies someone from being a dictator and warlord).

I didn't actually take a stand on what the United States should do if Turkey is drawn into conflict. I asked a question to which Saxi responded with his usual craziness, and by attacking my credibility based on a position I hadn't taken.


Then you go on to do the same thing by trying to radicalize my position to an irrational extreme:

You've been hardcore and absolute in asserting that intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases

I have not asserted that "intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases" as you accuse. I've tried to show why intervention can be the proper course of action some of the time.

The irony here is that I've specifically stated I'd be happy for the United States to let the parties in Syria weaken themselves against each other, which I believe benefits the United States, yet you've attacked me as though I universally held the exact opposite position in every circumstance, presumably because our reasoning for why The US shouldn't get involved is different.

You'll forever be a glad bearer of confirmation bias and exceptional stupidity.

Yes, I'm exceptionally stupid. That's a winning proposition.

I would like to have a conversation with you about confirmation bias at some point as there are some things you should reflect on, but that's not for today.

There's plenty like you that hardly engage in any understanding. They're like you on the Internet, but hardly in think tanks and the Pentagon. You're just a tool of the State, spouting off tired rhetoric. Enjoy your measly status in the world outside of US politics and policymaking...

... This isn't a debate for you. It's another opportunity for you to stand on a podium and spout your nonsense. The federal government is not interested in you holding a serious job in their circles because you cannot think critically. You lack the skill and knowledge.

What's this about Washington think tanks? Is this your dream, or do you think that it's my dream, or perhaps is that your dream for me?

I recognize that such a position might be difficult for me to obtain, but frankly I believe I have a better opportunity where I am. You are however correct in that I am not looking for a debate, and that this is essentially a podium.

That's not just true of me, but to most of us here. As much as I may enjoy doing this on occasion, I simply don't have the time or will to go through and dissect all of these false arguments.

[nietzsche]

I understand that you're incapable of dealing with logical positions that counter yours

The problem is that the logical positions that supposedly counter mine are demonstrably false, or counter positions which I haven't actually taken.

An example of the first type that I referenced occurred when I took the position that:

Lack of intervention at times can be damaging as the path of isolation led the US to be drawn into two world wars.

Saxi responded with evidence that the US may not have been neutral prior to the deceleration of the first world war, to which you responded that my position was "completely undermined."

The progression of this logic is demonstrably false as the following formula shows:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

Instead of recognizing the flaw in this and reflecting on how you might improve, you've ignored everything and continued as though nothing was wrong as we all often criticize Symmetry for. You and Saxi then go on to attempt to discredit me by claiming I've taken positions which I haven't, or claimed my statements were absolute when they are not.

Are you serious?

You say "I have cancer, I'm going to die!!", saxi says "you have no cancer you idiot, that's a rash, you are not going to die" then you pull

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

that from wikipedia and tell saxi was wrong all along, that you are mortal so you will die.. ?

My analogy might not be perfect.

That's retarded man, seriously, you are claiming something, saxi knows you are pulling that what you claim freely from your mind without really knowing all or that you are just repeating what a professor said at a lecture for whatever reason. So saxi shows that your premise is false, in the eyes of everyone who thinks, showing that you really don't know what you are talking about, and you deduct from all this that you are a genius and saxi is an idiot because he failed at proving you wrong?

Yes, theoretically Q might still be truth.

[GabonX]

Are you serious?

You say "I have cancer, I'm going to die!!", saxi says "you have no cancer you idiot, that's a rash, you are not going to die" then you pull

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

that from wikipedia and tell saxi was wrong all along, that you are mortal so you will die.. ?

My analogy might not be perfect.

That's retarded man, seriously, you are claiming something, saxi knows you are pulling that what you claim freely from your mind without really knowing all or that you are just repeating what a professor said at a lecture for whatever reason. So saxi shows that your premise is false, in the eyes of everyone who thinks, showing that you really don't know what you are talking about, and you deduct from all this that you are a genius and saxi is an idiot because he failed at proving you wrong?

Yes, theoretically Q might still be truth.

It's more like I said "people sometimes need surgery for cancer, Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth both died of it"

Saxi replied "Lou Gehrig didn't die of cancer so you are wrong." *pictures*

You don't believe in treatment and BBS doesn't think surgery is a necessary practice because we now have chemotherapy and he thinks surgery only makes cancer worse..

Everyone is opposed to using chemotherapy if no one has cancer but I will have to defend myself from accusations I said everyone needs it...

[BigBallinStalin]

Nietz, it's a good try, but GabonX isn't interested in addressing the flaws of his argument. He's not even aware of how both of our positions can be correct (for reasons I already mentioned).

He's here to regurgitate things from class or from something he read, but anything that contradicts his worldview will be discounted as incorrect because he says so.

Unfortunately, he hasn't changed over the years.

[saxitoxin]

I understand that you're incapable of dealing with logical positions that counter yours

The problem is that the logical positions that supposedly counter mine are demonstrably false, or counter positions which I haven't actually taken.

An example of the first type that I referenced occurred when I took the position that:

Lack of intervention at times can be damaging as the path of isolation led the US to be drawn into two world wars.

Saxi responded with evidence that the US may not have been neutral prior to the deceleration of the first world war, to which you responded that my position was "completely undermined."

The progression of this logic is demonstrably false as the following formula shows:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

Instead of recognizing the flaw in this and reflecting on how you might improve, you've ignored everything and continued as though nothing was wrong as we all often criticize Symmetry for. You and Saxi then go on to attempt to discredit me by claiming I've taken positions which I haven't, or claimed my statements were absolute when they are not.

I almost want to thank Saxi for making this so easy to illustrate with the following:

But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things?

I am intrigued you're taking the side of the ultra-Islamist party running Turkey over the secular party running Syria.

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)

He follows this with a picture of an Indian Muslim he claims is "some Turk" and another of warlord and dictator Bashar Assad with his wife and children (presented as though having a wife and children disqualifies someone from being a dictator and warlord).

I didn't actually take a stand on what the United States should do if Turkey is drawn into conflict. I asked a question to which Saxi responded with his usual craziness, and by attacking my credibility based on a position I hadn't taken.


Then you go on to do the same thing by trying to radicalize my position to an irrational extreme:

You've been hardcore and absolute in asserting that intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases

I have not asserted that "intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases" as you accuse. I've tried to show why intervention can be the proper course of action some of the time.

The irony here is that I've specifically stated I'd be happy for the United States to let the parties in Syria weaken themselves against each other, which I believe benefits the United States, yet you've attacked me as though I universally held the exact opposite position in every circumstance, presumably because our reasoning for why The US shouldn't get involved is different.

You'll forever be a glad bearer of confirmation bias and exceptional stupidity.

Yes, I'm exceptionally stupid. That's a winning proposition.

I would like to have a conversation with you about confirmation bias at some point as there are some things you should reflect on, but that's not for today.

There's plenty like you that hardly engage in any understanding. They're like you on the Internet, but hardly in think tanks and the Pentagon. You're just a tool of the State, spouting off tired rhetoric. Enjoy your measly status in the world outside of US politics and policymaking...

... This isn't a debate for you. It's another opportunity for you to stand on a podium and spout your nonsense. The federal government is not interested in you holding a serious job in their circles because you cannot think critically. You lack the skill and knowledge.

What's this about Washington think tanks? Is this your dream, or do you think that it's my dream, or perhaps is that your dream for me?

I recognize that such a position might be difficult for me to obtain, but frankly I believe I have a better opportunity where I am. You are however correct in that I am not looking for a debate, and that this is essentially a podium.

That's not just true of me, but to most of us here. As much as I may enjoy doing this on occasion, I simply don't have the time or will to go through and dissect all of these false arguments.

You said:

The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179900#p3928842

Therefore, if I prove either (a) the US did not pursue a path of isolation, or, (b) the U.S.' pursuit of the path of isolation did not lead to war, I have disproven your statement.

Here - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179900#p3928865 - I proved "A" false (the U.S. did not pursue a path a isolation). Ergo your statement is false. Since this statement is used to example your thesis "... lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging [as non-intervention]" you are now advancing a thesis with no real-world examples to support it.

You then went on to say -

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time)

- which is so ridiculous it doesn't require a response. The U.S. is one of the very few nations in the world that has the capability to attack nations with which it doesn't share a land border.

[BigBallinStalin]

No no, sax. It's false because Gabon says so. Let us sit and watch as he asserts another opinion in order to advance his absolutely true worldview.

Maybe he'll teach us that intervention is not really intervention!

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?

I do

WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)

Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.

And this tangent constitutes a red herring because it argues against a position I haven't taken, that being I've made a comparison between the state of things in Syria and Germany under Hitler. I mentioned the Third Reich only as an example of when earlier intervention would have likely saved lives to illustrate this kind of situation exists, not to say Syria is the same today.

You've committed fallacies with your false assertion towards me here, and in this post you've denied the antecedent and committed false pretense in the first two sentences respectively. I could find more examples of your looseness in this thread, but it takes too much time to illustrate it all...

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.

I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.

Sure, Gabon.

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point they would have had a qualitative edge in weaponry as the industrial sector of the German war machine was not yet at peak production. While it's possible that for some unknown reason Germany may have been able to inflict more damage to the allies with a less developed military, it's much more likely that intervention at this point of qualitative military advantage for the allied powers would have saved the lives of countless civilians and service people.

'Intervention is necessary!'

Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.

This Gabon refutes.

But then, he does exactly what I'm talking about:

The point is simple. If conflict seems likely because enemies of a man or state proclaim their hatred and lust for violence against that man or state, action should be taken at a point of strategic advantage. This may come before an enemy acts in which case the action taken is preemptive. If it is deemed that a greater advantage may come at some point in the future it may be wiser to pursue a policy of postponement. To pursue postponement while such an enemy is gaining relative strength is foolish and will likely cost resources, lives, or both to correct, if such a mistake is correctable.

Take WW2 Hitler's rise, and argue that the benefits would've offset the costs had intervention occurred earlier. (this is using the counter-factual). He's doing exactly what I said he would, but he rejects that.

This is ridiculous.


Then there's still the problem of false equivalence. As he imagines the benefits of intervention at time X in a WW2 setting, he conveniently forgets that the world of WW2 and today involve different incentives, institutions, and organizations regarding conflict and peace. He's advancing an apples to oranges comparison while asserting that he knows what 'false equivalence' and 'apples to oranges' mean. He simply doesn't. This is evidence from his very words.

That and having hindsight is real cute, but then we have to ask, "how could they know that intervention at time X would be best? And if they did, was it even possible? " Knowledge isn't perfect, yet for Gabon, his case requires perfect knowledge (as shown through the argument he was advancing).

[saxitoxin]

Secular Turks who don't support the militant jihadist party governing Turkey blame their own government for stirring up trouble in Syria.

In an empty coffee house in Antakya, local tradesman Ahmet Sari's face crumples in anger as he speaks about Syria.

"What's happening in Syria is all part of America's great project to reshape the borders of the Middle East. America and its allies don't care about bringing democracy to the Syrian people. Look at what happened to Iraq!” he fumes. “The imperialist countries are only after oil and mineral resources.”

Nineteen months into Syria's conflict, resentment of Ankara and anti-US sentiment simmer in Antakya, which lies just over the border with Syria. The province is grappling with an ailing trade and tourism sector and an influx of refugees and rebel fighters. Locals blame the Turkish government for dragging them into the conflict by backing the Syrian opposition and aligning Turkey with the opposition's Western allies.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... -implosion

The militant Jihadists in Turkey have only a sliver of a majority in parliament. The largest opposition in Turkey, the secular Republican Party, has denounced the militant Jihadists running the Turkish government for meddling in Syrian affairs.

The leader of the Republican People's Party (CHP), Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, on Wednesday criticized the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) Syrian policy, accusing the government of interfering in the internal affairs of the crisis-hit country.

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288970- ... fairs.html

Gabby - it seems unlike you to throw an anti-Islamist, pro-secular party under the bus and rally behind a militant gang of wild-eyed jihadists waving swords over their head and shouting ululations. But I understand why you are, however. World Zionism can realize a short-term gain by backing lunatic jihadists with 5-foot long beards over secularists. If Syria falls to the jihadists, the country will be a basketcase racked by communal violence and militarily impotent to Israel. Then a wave of Zionist settlers can safely start setting up camp in the Golan Heights. Often the cause of Israel is advanced by jihadism. For instance, because of 9/11, the U.S. created casus belli to castrate Iraq. The U.S. didn't benefit, Iraq didn't benefit. But Israel sure did - and without spending $1. The Zionists will happily lead the U.S. on a leash into war with Russia without batting an eye.

Meanwhile -

Hundreds of activists in just one small border village in Turkey, from Freedom-Solidarity - the Turkish libertarian party - rallied against their jihadist government and in support of Syria and Bashar al-Assad.

Young Syrian-Australians (and a creepy guy with a mustache) in Sydney denounce any attempts at western intervention and declare unwavering support for President Assad, and the Ba'ath Party. They declare the U.S., Qatar and Saudi Arabia are fueling regional instability.

[thegreekdog]

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.

I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.

Is this the more wordy equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "NO NO NO NO!" over and over again?

What is the purpose of posting if not receiving and responding to comments on your post? If, as you later put, you just want to "inform" then why would you respond to others in the first place?

But let's go back to something basic and see if we can understand. Let's assume that enough Muslims in enough countries hate the United States such that they would like to do us harm. What caused that animosity? Was it US intervention or was it something else? If it was US intervention would a viable alternative to further US intervention be non-intervention? Of course, I type that ignoring the valuable sundries certain people receive from US intervention, like power and money, and focus instead on what is best for US security, so let's table the discussion of war as corporate welfare.

[Guderian09]

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point ....., I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

Who declared war to whom??? France and GB did in 1939.

Only the war on the US was declared by Germany in 1942, anyway US was already waging war by sending war material to England and airforce pilots to RAF.

Mentioning the treaty of Versailles, who was one of the most shameful documents ever produced to impose on to a defeat nation.

Anyone has ever found the WMDs in Iraq??

Hundreds of thousands of deaths occurred for no reason and u still want to speculate on the reason hatred is upon US policies?

Mcfly think

[chang50]

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point ....., I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

Who declared war to whom??? France and GB did in 1939.

Only the war on the US was declared by Germany in 1942, anyway US was already waging war by sending war material to England and airforce pilots to RAF.

This factual error was pointed out earlier but no retraction was forthcoming making it difficult to take anything Gabon writes seriously..

[saxitoxin]

Laughing off the western "boycott" of Iran, a delegation of the Bundestag arrived in Tehran today for discussions on how to strengthen trade relations between Iran and Germany. The delegation included members of all the major parties including both the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. The trip is being led by Bijan Djir-Sarai from the right-wing Free Democratic Party. Israel's panties are wound super-tight over the trip, of course, but no one is paying attention to them as their Chicken Little act has essentially guaranteed their irrelevance.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... es-in-iran

[Dukasaur]

Found it.

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

- Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

[patches70]

That picture looks familiar, can't place it though......

[DoomYoshi]

As I said earlier:

James Jeffrey just gave me some weird advice. He said "Quit your EU faggotry and embrace Erdogan as America's best hope to beat Russia".

I didn't see how this was feasible since Syria is pretty much a foregone American defeat. His proposed solution had nothing to do with Syria though.

In the end, I definitely could see a full-scale bait-and-switch by invoking NATO wrath via Russia invading Turkey.

I guess Erdogan isn't such a terrible ally after all. He is the closest thing to Putin the rest of the world has.

Let's do this!