-
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!
The Democratic Party is the Party of War
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
No...they are Donbas citizens...who have been living there since the times of Catherine the Great.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Warlike Party.... Long live WAR
and then war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war and war.
After watching this interview...I mean.
But if you want to convince me it isn't the party of war...well...I am listening to you. I am ready to say: sorry, it's not the party of war.
PS: Since this thread is not about Trump, do not mention him, or I will have to kindly ask you to remove the posts bringing him up.
Sad, but true. Biden has much blood on his hands.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
if the show fits...
Perhaps, but that's not what the US government and media tell the people. Back in '85, they said that Gaddafi was behind the bombing of a Berlin nightclub which was popular among US servicemen. That's why it was targeted. They also said he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.
Americans aren't typically told about the role of bankers and financiers in world affairs, as that seems to be dismissed as "conspiracy theory" (as if it's whacko to believe that businesses actually want to make money).
All the American people really knew was that "someone attacked us for no good reason." Wikileaks, along with more detailed study of world events, reveal many of the reasons behind these things, but a lot of that falls on deaf ears (as you may have already noticed).
The US relationship with Saudi Arabia is rather inscrutable, I will admit. By all rights, they should be treated no differently than regimes like that of Iran or North Korea, and yet, our government treats them like a close friend and ally. The Saudis were enemies of America back in '73 when they imposed the oil embargo, yet for some reason, they became our friend at some point - and that was okay with the US leadership. I've heard it said that "enemies make dangerous friends."
The fact that most of US foreign policy is so wantonly inconsistent and disjointed like that should at least be an indication that our leaders are actually mocking the principles they claim to uphold. I think this is painfully obvious to a lot of people, which is part of the reason the public seems restless these days, along with a great deal of political discord and anti-government sentiment. People may not know precisely what goes on behind the scenes, which is why there are so many speculative rumors, conspiracy theories, and good old-fashioned political spin and manipulation. The hypocrisy of our leaders is their greatest weakness and liability.
I believe you, but with the government, media, and other influences at work, it's easy to see how public opinion can be manipulated along certain lines. That, coupled with outrageous acts of terrorism, such as the Berlin nightclub bombing, Pan Am 103, etc., it sparks outrage and anger in the people which can make them even more vulnerable to that kind of manipulation and gaslighting of the kind our politicians and pundits are famous for.
This is even true for things that may not affect America directly, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Hamas attack on Israel. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait back in 1990 also seemed to captivate Americans. I remember an ambassador from Kuwait showing up on all the news channels and was all over TV, getting a lot of airplay. His message was simple and plain: "Please, America, save us from that evil Saddam Hussein!" It seems to appeal to Americans' sense of national pride and vanity, playing the role of the damsel in distress being victimized by the big bad bully.
Of course, it matters. Just like with the Kuwaiti ambassador back in 1990, Americans are interested in and want to hear the opinions of the outside world. But it largely depends on what the mainstream media and government choose to show them. From what I can tell, European opinions are somewhat divided, but overall, they seem to want the US to continue playing the same role in NATO and stand with them in common cause and common security interests. At least, that's what I've heard said on the matter.
Just as in America, European politics appears to be in a state of flux. There are sharp differences of opinion between left and right, conservative and liberal, etc. So, when you speak of the opinion of the German nation as a whole, that still seems kind of vague.
Well, I guess it just depends on who is in charge and what direction the people of the nations of Europe want to do. Some of them are anti-Russia, some are pro-Russia, and some appear to be neutral. Although in today's political climate, even taking a neutral stance seems politically inexpedient.
I tried and read some of the transcript, although it came off a bit choppy. I sometimes wish they would post a written text transcription. Even if it was written in German, it would be easier to just run it through a translation app.
Most of my ancestors came from Europe, which is the case for most of the European-American population in the United States. Our language, our ideals, our culture, and the blueprint for our political system and government were originally conceived in Europe. You speak of America as if we come from another planet, but we're all from the same planet.
Americans might have different views of Europe, depending on the context. But considering the founding of America, the circumstances, and the context of how many Europeans came to America and established themselves in this country, it seems that much of America is comprised of people whose ancestors wanted to leave Europe. An underlying perception might be similar to how you've spoken of the "evil cabal of warmongers" relating to America.
Originally, I think a lot of Americans might have seen Europe that way, but more like an "evil cabal of churchmen" and an "evil cabal of nobles and aristocrats." There's no room for a "socialist soul" under those conditions.
Granted, Europe has changed a great deal since the 18th and 19th centuries, as the World Wars of the 20th century were as if the whole continent just self-destructed and whatever existed of the "old order" became less relevant.
But in some ways, I get the sense that Europeans may be pining for that "old order" once again. There are some in America who also seem to want to go back to our own "old order" in a manner of speaking. I don't think has much to do with socialism or having a socialist soul, as socialism was/is very much against the "old order" as well. But it doesn't seem that the "new order" is really all that much different from the "old order."
I do subscribe to many socialist ideals and principles, but mainly, I see it as a worldwide, global endeavor. Not just for Europe or America, but for the whole world, encompassing all of humanity. It doesn't necessarily have to be socialist in the strictest sense, but I can't see how predatory, dog-eat-dog, mobster-style, militaristic capitalism is going to do much to promote cooperation, peace, and friendship in the world. It seems to be having the opposite effect.
There's no evidence Libya was behind these attacks.
Also...a former PM from Italy said that it is the NATO that have always tried to kill Gaddafi...even before 1985.
In fact this PM said that some NATO military jets (French ones) chased out a Libyan jet because they thought Gaddafi was on that flight, but accidentally clashed with an Italian commercial plane and this was the result: Itavia Flight 870 - Wikipedia
The Ustica massacre has always strengthened the anti-NATO sentiment in my country because the NATO has always pleaded the fifth on the matter.
And pleading the fifth means guilty in our judicial system.
If the official narrative is that the religious hatred is what pushed these terrorists to do Nine Eleven, that means that economics has nothing to do with that. Being SA an economic partner of the US.
To me it's obvious that Gaddafi (and Nasser before him) was considered a dangerous person because he was a socialist leader who wrote teh Green Book, the symbol of the Pan-Arabic socialism.
I guess that the banking system which sees the Arab world as a land to exploit and conquer will have to make up some stories against him.
And by the way...Libya was the most westernized Arab country in the world. Tripoli looked like Miami....really...much more modern than Italy itself.
Not quite.
The conflict is between pro-EU parties and anti-EU parties. We also have the euro debate...this currency that is criticized by both leftist and rightist parties.
European politics is a bit more complex... it can be summed up with the phrase: Commoners vs élites.
I prefer to say: Banking sewer vs Taxpayers.
Because bankers don't pay enough taxes...they should be the ones who pay the most.
She basically says that Germany takes order from Washington DC...and so Germans are not free to decide about their own foreign policy.
Germany is a US colony...basically. And it is the NATO expansion that provoked Putin and pushed him to invade.
So... I would like to know why Americans believe that Germans feel threatened by Russia.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
It might have something to do with those who had relatives that grew up behind the Iron curtain and were extremely cognizant of Soviet style socialism. Any benefits of socialism were outweighed by the repressive authoritarian structure.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
It's also the party of:
It's not the party of:
- violence/aggression/intimidation/coercion/bullying
- might makes right
- double standards & hypocrisy
- do as I say, not as I do
- it's only ok if we do it, not if anyone else does it, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, or a good idea or bad idea
- fallacy-riddled arguments
- diversions
- never admitting that they're wrong
- animism & zoolatry
- collectivism/socialism
- misinformation
- disinformation
- Orwellianism
- government that's bigger than it should be, and along with that inefficient with unnecessary levels of overhead
- their own rules, even if they contradict laws & rights
- decay & destruction
- being reckless and irresponsible
It's not the party of:
- a preference for peace
- freedom of religion
- freedom of speech
- right to keep and bear arms
- free markets
- economic soundness
- individualism
- growth & prosperity
- accountability for their actions
- truth
- being neutral, objective, and consistent
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Then you obviously didn't pay attention to General Milley and why he secretly told Chinese leaders that he would not launch a preemptive nuclear strike if the former president ordered him to do so.
Perhaps not. The US government often takes an attitude of "Trust us, bro, we're telling the truth." And people are expected to simply accept it on blind faith, without verifiable evidence, lest they be accused of disloyalty or a lack of patriotism.
Yes, those who indicate that they're hiding something usually have a reason for doing so. I note that this happened in 1980, a rather pivotal year in US politics.
There may be any number of nuanced, detailed reasons that 9/11 happened, although based on US policies towards the Middle East in general, it seems clear that there are more than a few people who are kind of fed up with the US interfering their region.
Bush said "they hate us for our freedom" and tried to downplay the religious aspects, insisting that the US was not at war with Islam, only the radical terrorists. My impression (though I could be wrong) is that their motives were likely more nationalistic than religious. However, the Bush response seems it was tempered and measured more by economic considerations, neither religious nor nationalistic.
I've heard similar things about Iran when it was under the Shah. They were more westernized. Even in Afghanistan during the 70s, women dressed as westerners and seemed a lot more free than they are now. Lebanon was also quite westernized, from what I understand.
I was about 10 when the Arab oil embargo took place, which is when I started to gain a greater understanding of how the world works and how vital resources like oil can be weaponized in such a way. It was in the years following that that things began unravel in the Middle East, in multiple countries. If the West had any plans to conquer or exploit the Middle East for its resources, it sure had a strange way of going about it.
Historically, the Middle East has been invaded many times. Alexander the Great, Caesar, the Great Khan - quite an illustrious and rich history.
In more recent times, it seems they've been dealing with The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, which is probably why the whole thing has been a total botch.
It seems that many of the same issues are present in the U.S., but just presented in a different way when it comes to politics and elections. The Democrats appear to be the party of the status quo, and the status quo has entailed a highly militaristic, interventionist national security state dedicated to neo-colonialism shrouded behind a facade of "making the world safe for democracy." The Republicans on the right have mostly supported that as well, although their more extremist America First position should have been expected as a consequence of the policies embraced by the status quo.
Make no mistake, both parties are the parties of war. The Democrats seem to want to maintain the status quo of the US being the leader of the free world, but taking a more measured and restrained approach, which some might see as ineffective, weak, or even kind of wimpy. The Republicans and the America Firsters seem to interpret "leader of the free world" as meaning that "America should rule the world." They don't appear to believe in limited measures or wimpy approaches, but more of a "he man" style of warfare of the kind waged in WW2. "Bomb them back to the Stone Age!" The status quo has been more along the lines of global economic gangsterism (which is why I call them the "gang that couldn't shoot straight"), but some seem to prefer a more militaristic and nationalistic approach to geopolitics.
"Colony" might be an overstatement, but I get your meaning. Strictly speaking, they are perfectly free, as a sovereign nation, to decide their own foreign policy. But they also have to consider the consequences of any choice they make along those lines, as does Russia and the United States. We're free to do whatever we want, but there may be consequences depending on what we choose to do.
I also think that it's oversimplification to say that "Germany takes orders from Washington DC." If nothing else, it begs the question, from whom does Washington DC take its orders? Because it's clearly not the American people. The ordinary Americans don't benefit from any of this, so where do these "orders" originate from?
I don't know if most Americans believe that Germans feel threatened by Russia. I don't think there's any immediate threat to Germany from Russia, but I suppose anything is possible in this topsy-turvy world we live in. At this point, I think the leaders of Germany probably have a vested interest in the same status quo that US leaders are invested in. I don't know that it means that one is giving orders to the other, but who knows?
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Dang! I forgot to add one other thing; it's also the party of racism - white supremacism.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
If there is a political party of no war, then they will never belong in a world full of it. Even in the event of no present conflict, they would be hard pressed to remain established without a willing and able constituency. Without this much, we've already lost all hope of any defense or any security against any would be aggressor who doesn't mind coming against those most vulnerable to a loss.
If they have any true potential as our ongoing leaders and leadership, then I would damn sure hope so...unless our citizen base would be ok with being under another much more aggressive nation's control, having no voice as Americans anymore.
I won't mention you know who, because you know who is now not allowed to be mentioned without being negated and rejected, and labeled as not being worth having a voice at all, for making mention of you know who, all because of the limitation placed upon us due to someone being in disagreement with "you know who" who refuses to listen or acknowledge anyone who might happen to mention whoever you know who is. .
1st amendment important
If they have any true potential as our ongoing leaders and leadership, then I would damn sure hope so...unless our citizen base would be ok with being under another much more aggressive nation's control, having no voice as Americans anymore.
I won't mention you know who, because you know who is now not allowed to be mentioned without being negated and rejected, and labeled as not being worth having a voice at all, for making mention of you know who, all because of the limitation placed upon us due to someone being in disagreement with "you know who" who refuses to listen or acknowledge anyone who might happen to mention whoever you know who is. .
1st amendment important
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
No, in the first part of the 21st century too; maybe someday they'll stop being the party of racism and white supremacism, but that ain't today & I don't see that in the foreseeable future.Meanwhile back in the 21st century.
Are you going to challenge this with me by asking me to explain, rather than by tossing out these soft & shallow implicit rebuttal type of comments? Is it because you know I'm actually correct?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
No as the proposer, we will leave it to you to make some sort of argument to back up your assertion.
Indeed. In the pre-internet era, that was the procedure for all of us.
Economy has nothing to do with Nine Eleven. The Pentagon was hit too...people only focus on NYC and forget about Washington DC.
I think it had to do with religious hatred, otherwise they would have never used hijackers disposed to sacrifice themselves.
Russians have had their little Nine Eleven last March. March 22, 2024, in Moscow. Many civilians died.
Well...it's religious hatred, Moscow is a Christian capital, after all, of a huge country.
Until 2008.
With Mr. Hussein Obama, I guess there was a switch.
In the GOP the warlike fringe was ousted and marginalized, whereas Trump prevailed.
In the Dem Party the warlike fringe has prevailed.
You can't understand how shocking and devastating is that neo-cons support Harris and not Trump.
Neo-Cons= Warlike fringe.
Yeah...the Warlike Party.
Funded by the Military Industrial Complex that gains billions from weapons sale.
That's called blackmailing: that is, when your choices are conditioned by fear of retaliation.
I have never said that American commoners are the one who decide the foreign affairs...and the relations with Europe.
There is a Deep State in Wa DC that blackmails Germany, for sure.
I don't think so...
It's clear that Europe is not free to establish a neutral stance between USA and Russia.
They are asked to side with USA only. Against Russia.
I guess Germany (or rather EU) wants to be neutral between these two parties.
Yes.
Perhaps from the standpoint of the hijackers, religious hatred might have been their motivation. But if that was the case, why not go after the Washington National Cathedral or St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York? Why attack the Pentagon? They also seem very anti-imperialist and apparently consider the US military presence on their soil to be some kind of defilement. This would imply a more nationalistic motive, even if intertwined with religion.
They may have hated our religion, but if we never sent troops over there or did anything aggressive against them, I doubt they would have engaged in such an attack against the U.S.
However, the motives behind the US response were not motivated by religion or nationalism. Remember, the people who lead the U.S. think like mobsters, so from their standpoint, a rival gang made a "hit" against us, and as any good mobster would know, we had to "hit them back." They didn't seem to care about what religion they were, nor even about nationality. Economics was their primary concern, as it usually is.
Yes, it's an unfortunate and tragic world we live in. The sad irony is that these bombings and attacks have had almost zero success towards any of these terrorist groups reaching their goals or objectives.
I think it started before Obama. There had long been sharp divisions within the Democratic Party, between North and South, between progressives and moderates, between hawks and doves, between quasi-socialists and capitalists, and between those who supported unions and those who support free trade. It seems the warmongers won out, which isn't too surprising, considering that's where the money is.
Within the GOP, I can't really discern any strong evidence of any real "peace movement" among them. The internal struggle they're facing appears to be between nationalists and internationalists within the party. I don't think one is any more warlike or peaceful than the other. Their dispute is more along the lines of what America's national interests are and who America's true "enemies" should be.
For example, some Republicans have been demanding greater border security in exchange for their support on aid to Ukraine. They might even see Mexico as a more immediate threat to America than Russia. It doesn't make them more peaceful; they just want to change who we're targeting. They've also shown a certain propensity or perhaps desire for some kind of civil war within America, and you can bet your last lira that they ain't gonna be peaceful.
They're both the parties of war. The only real difference we can hope for (at least from the standpoint of the ordinary American) is that the Democrats at least demand something on behalf of the working class, in exchange for their support of war. Maybe. But if they don't, that would be the reason for their possible failure.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. Somehow, I think it goes deeper than merely wanting profits from weapons sales. It's from wanting profits from everything. They don't seem to have any desire to control the world through conquest or colonization. They tried that in the 19th and 20th centuries, but they could not sustain it over the long run, at least in most areas. America itself is also a product of conquest and colonization, and yet, we've become more powerful than the colonizers.
A lot of it is rooted in the same game which has existed for as long as recorded history. Humans will fight and kill each other over many things, and as our societies became more complex, human politics and all of its trappings remain as a constant bugaboo.
But through most of that time, the planet was not quite as populated, much of it remained unexplored and unknown to each other for millennia, and the bottom line was the belief that there were always more worlds to conquer. Until now.
Now, we've reached a certain plateau, a kind of "dead end" where the ways and means of how we have done things for thousands of years will have to be changed.
Some people are just too stubborn to realize this.
Yep, fear and intimidation are also time-honored and effective tools in politics. Humans really kinda suck, don't they?
Which brings us back to the reasons why people start wars. It's also why governments feel the need to endorse a military-industrial complex in the first place. As a general rule, humans don't like to be pushed around or blackmailed. Oftentimes, they might even lose their fear of retaliation and go up against a more powerful enemy in a fit of blind rage and hatred. So, they still have the choice, and they're taking a risk either way. Some people might subscribe to the idea that it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
But are you certain that it physically exists in Washington DC? Could it be somewhere else in the world?
It just doesn't seem likely that Europe is "not free" to set their own course. Most of these countries have had a much longer history with the Russians than the US ever did. Without necessarily taking one side or the other, I do realize that many countries of Europe may have their own reasons for taking sides against Russia, not because the USA is telling them to. Even if what you're saying is true, that they're taking orders from the USA, many of them seem quite enthusiastic about following those orders.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
It's an observation (and we would like to know who you're referring to by "we").No as the proposer, we will leave it to you to make some sort of argument to back up your assertion.