Quibbling over minutia again?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Looks like Americans go against the war with Iran
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
Quibbling over minutia again?
When there's nothing specific enuf (ie, not even
minutiae) to even quibble over, it's just extrication.
Perhaps, but it's not even part of the overall topic. You just picked out a couple of isolated side points.
An act of kindness.
Really? You seemed interested in the idea of trying to convince voters to go against the warmongers. You keep pressing the point that it's all the voters' fault for voting them in.
My view is not that the voters want war, but that they have too much trust in the government and the political system. This essentially gives a blank check to government, and that's something I would like to see come to an end. I think the public should be encouraged to be more cynical and skeptical about the government's claims and their proposals for action.
You would discourage that. Why?
Stop voting in war mongers.
Vote for non-war mongers.
Which ones?
We'll see who runs in the 2020 election.
I haven't really noticed any major candidates running on a platform of peace. Of course, in order to do so, it would require a major overhaul of our foreign policy and a serious re-evaluation of America's role in this world. This is something the voters are going to have to seriously examine and consider. The media and politicians should make it their main focus.
The problem that I have is that very few people put enough attention or study into these matters. They just blindly accept that "this is what we're supposed to do," as if we don't have any choice in the matter. The voters don't even seem to be aware that they have a choice, or they're afraid that if they make the wrong choice, it could be seen as "unpatriotic" or "treasonous."
If it all rests with the voters and their choices, then how can this mindset be challenged and reversed?
Both parties have run essentially the same foreign policy, so they'd have to vote for some independent or third party who proposes something totally different.
And they're not necessarily "warmongers" in the strictest sense. We have military forces scattered all over the world in a de facto "empire" of sorts. Our ruling class is comprised of imperialists, and empires face resistance and insurrection from time to time (Iran and the Shah were just one of many examples). It's just the cost of doing business. The "warmongering" is simply imperialists desperately trying to hold on to their empire when they should have let it go long ago.
But the voters don't really understand it on that level. They see it as a never-ending fight for "freedom" and "justice" in the universe. This is the mindset you're dealing with when you challenge the "warmongers."
Pay attention to records in office, eg, congressional votes.
Promises are empty, but past is prologue.
In Trump's case, we didn't have any congressional votes to go by.
I would look more at their understanding of foreign policy and how it relates to America. Whether or not they support or oppose this war or that war is immaterial. How do they look at America and its role in the world? The answer to that will tell us where they stand.
Do they believe that America should withdraw from permanent alliances, eschew foreign entanglements, and maintain a guarded neutrality when it comes to national defense? If not, then they're "warmongers."
If we could start looking at it that way, then that would be a move in the right direction.
That's why I'd long described him as a loose cannon.
You don't know which way he'll point.
I don't think candidates will be honest about such things.
It would work against them.
Shad
Veteran Member
Sanders appears to be this type of candidate. He voted against the second Iraq conflict.
Shad
Veteran Member
Afghanistan has untapped oil. IE It lacks the industry to extract and exploit it..
Shad
Veteran Member
Ergo acts of terrorism as a counter attack ergo Trump is justified.
I thought it was about the voters and not the candidates.
How much of it have we gotten?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Sanders is just a realist. He looked at the evidence for the WMDs and said "Bull****!". And was right as almost always.
Tulsi Gabbard on the other hand has experience with the military and she seems to be really against war.
There's a deterministic relationship between them.
Shad
Veteran Member
If he were he wouldn't of never been a socialist nor communist as both are idealist.
No he didn't. He voted "No" as he didn't think Iraq as a threat to the US. Read his speech in the Senate during the vote. He never said a single word about WMDs as true nor false. He never even brought up WMDs. Try again.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war
She is against regime changes as those typically do not work. Japan and Germany were the exceptions not the basis of the nation building working.