1. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    24 Sep '14 19:36
    While most members of the two rich people funded parties fall all over themselves to support the newest extension of our never ending Middle East War, it seems America's true opposition parties are united against it. From the Opposition News site:

    Libertarian Party

    The Libertarian Party was the first to issue a statement, the day before President Obama’s announcement that the nation was going back to war. America’s corporate-owned news outlets primed the nation for two straight days before the President’s speech, single-handedly changing America’s support for war in Iraq and Syria from 30% to 60% over the course of just a few days.

    ‘The Libertarian Party urges lawmakers to stop bombing in Iraq and to disengage operations in both Iraq and Syria,’ the LP announcement on Tuesday evening began. LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark went on to explain, “The US government has been intervening in the Middle East for more than half a century under the pretext of achieving peace. But things just keep getting worse. We must stop stoking conflicts that tear countries apart, stop dropping bombs, and stay out of the region.”

    “The absurdity of spending more US taxpayer dollars to destroy US weapons is one more piece of evidence that we must draw down our military," the Libertarian National Committee Chair continued, “A non-interventionist foreign policy is the best way to achieve peace and reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on US soil. It will also go a long way toward balancing the federal budget, cutting taxes, and halting inflation.”


    Green Party

    For its part, the Green Party simply redistributed their press release from three months ago which ominously spoke to nearly every specific detail of President Obama’s war speech Wednesday. ‘The Green Party of the United States is calling for no new US military action in Iraq, including on-the-ground troop deployment and airstrikes,’ the Party’s announcement read, ‘Greens are urging President Obama to resist demands by belligerent politicians and pundits for a US assault in Iraq against ISIS - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.’

    “Those who want peace in the region should prepare to resume the protests that answered President Bush’s drumbeat for war,” 2012 Green Party Vice Presidential nominee Cheri Honkala was quoted in the announcement, “Americans should resist propaganda claiming that US military assaults lead to peace and liberation. The 2003 invasion caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, as well as 4,486 US service members, and destruction of Iraqi society and infrastructure.”

    The Party’s press release went on to say, ‘Further US military action is likely to aggravate the current crisis and may empower ISIS and other factions, as the history of US engagement in Iraq demonstrates. The invasion ordered by President Bush in 2003 made such conflict inevitable: sectarian extremist groups, which had a marginal presence in Iraq before 2003, began to emerge in the chaos of war…Green Party leaders also noted the dangerous inconsistency of a foreign policy that supports arming sectarian anti-Assad rebels in Syria and anti-Gaddafi factions in Libya while bombing their counterparts in Iraq.’

    Constitution Party

    Like America’s other opposition parties, the Constitution Party didn’t need to go far to find a fully prepared rebuttal to President Obama’s Wednesday night war speech. The Party simply re-released its position statement from October. Also just like the other parties, it ominously spoke to the President’s announcement that America must go back to war.

    ‘No more meddling in the Middle East,’ the Constitution Party’s press release begins, ‘Military intervention in the Syrian civil war is unconstitutional and unwise. The Constitution Party platform opposes interventionism, and even saber rattling, unless the vital interests of the nation are at risk and the House of Representatives authorizes military action. Our plank on foreign policy demands that Congress, “refuse to fund unconstitutional, undeclared wars pursuant to presidential whim or international obligations under which American sovereignty has been transferred to multi-national agencies.”’


    ‘The Constitution Party opposes war by Executive Order as well,’ the Party’s statement continues, ‘The US Constitution is clear: only Congress has the power to “define and punish…offenses against the Law of Nations” (Art. 1, § 8, cl.10). Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal.’

    The Party’s rebuttal to President Obama’s Wednesday announcement speaks directly to his promise to expand American military action to Syria. ‘Intervention in the tragic Syrian civil war is not only unconstitutional, it is a risky strategy,’ the announcement explains, ‘Dropping American bombs into this complex, confusing, and far away fight will only fortify terrorist rallying cries and further erode the historic US foreign policy based on fairness, justice, and guided by a moral compass…The Constitution Party urges voters to reject US jingoism and heed Thomas Jefferson’s sage foreign policy advice: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”’

    Party for Socialism and Liberation

    Illustrating why we at Opposition News refer to PSL as a ‘rapid response force’, Party leaders were literally typing and releasing their public response to President Obama’s Wednesday night war speech as he was speaking. The Party’s announcement proclaimed it was speaking for the anti-war movement and it echoed the exact same condemnation that all the other opposition parties stated.

    ‘President Obama’s new war plans in Iraq and Syria will not liberate the people of either country but will lead to more destruction,’ the PSL rebuttal began, ‘The US military defeat of the secular Iraqi and Libyan governments (in 2003 and 2011) and its policy of fueling armed civil war against the secular, nationalist government in Syria are the fundamental reasons the so-called Islamic State has grown and become strong.’

    Reaffirming the opinion that President Obama is little different from his Republican predecessors, the Party statement goes on to say, ‘Perpetuating a now 23-year-long US political tradition, President Obama is announcing tonight that he, like the three preceding US presidents, will go forward with another bombing campaign in Iraq. This is a war that will lead only to more catastrophe and destruction.’


    ‘The US military cannot solve, but only exacerbate, the current crisis in Iraq and Syria,’ the PSL announcement concludes, ‘In fact, the US government, the CIA and the Pentagon are responsible for the disintegration of Iraq and Syria and the consequent rise of the Islamic State and other equally reactionary, sectarian forces in Iraq’s central government and elsewhere in these countries. The so-called Islamic State did not exist a decade ago. It exists now and has grown strong for three basic reasons, each of which is a direct consequence of US policies and actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria.’

    Opposition Parties in agreement

    There you have it. For all the doubters out there that swore we would never all agree on anything, we told you there were issues that all of America’s opposition parties, left, right and center, could unite on. We all stand for justice. We all stand for truth. And we all stand for freedom. Maybe someday we can all stand for those things together.

    http://www.oppositionnews.org/articles/2014/q3/opposition-parties-united-opposition-obama-war-isis/
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    24 Sep '14 19:541 edit
    Hey, what do you say we arm some Taliban fighters to go over and knock of North Korea?

    How does $2 billion in arms sound?
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    24 Sep '14 20:21
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    While most members of the two rich people funded parties fall all over themselves to support the newest extension of our never ending Middle East War, it seems America's true opposition parties are united against it. From the Opposition News site:

    Libertarian Party

    The Libertarian Party was the first to issue a statement, the day before President O ...[text shortened]... p://www.oppositionnews.org/articles/2014/q3/opposition-parties-united-opposition-obama-war-isis/
    Yes no1. It is the 2 major political parties that are insane. This is based on Einstein's definition of insanity. Our government keeps bombing them and they hate us more and their solution is to bomb some more.

    The repulicrats are convinced they will get a different result if they keep bombing enough. Truly insane!
  4. Subscriberkevcvs57
    Flexible
    The wrong side of 60
    Joined
    22 Dec '11
    Moves
    37006
    24 Sep '14 20:55
    "There was an old lady who swallowed a fly" springs to mind
  5. Joined
    22 Jun '08
    Moves
    8801
    24 Sep '14 21:24
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Yes no1. It is the 2 major political parties that are insane. This is based on Einstein's definition of insanity. Our government keeps bombing them and they hate us more and their solution is to bomb some more.

    The repulicrats are convinced they will get a different result if they keep bombing enough. Truly insane!
    Yup. I would prefer that we send in ground troops and pound them into the sand myself.... hurt them so badly they never recover..
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    24 Sep '14 21:33
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    Yup. I would prefer that we send in ground troops and pound them into the sand myself.... hurt them so badly they never recover..
    Nonsense!

    All that needs to be done is equip the Taliban to go into North Korea, and then arm North Korea to take out ISIS, and then arm ISIS to take out Assad like Obama originally wanted to do. Add a few bombings here and there, and watch the world be saved.

    It all makes perfect sense.
  7. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    24 Sep '14 21:36
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    Yup. I would prefer that we send in ground troops and pound them into the sand myself.... hurt them so badly they never recover..
    That worked so well in 2003.
  8. Joined
    22 Jun '08
    Moves
    8801
    24 Sep '14 22:25
    A friend of mine from Texas explained it all to me: “Here in west Texas I have rattlesnakes on my place, living among us. I have killed a rattlesnake on the front porch. I have killed a rattlesnake on the back porch. I have killed rattlesnakes in the barn, in the shop and on the driveway. In fact, I kill every rattlesnake I encounter.

    I kill rattlesnakes because I know a rattlesnake will bite me and inject me with poison. I don’t stop to wonder why a rattlesnake will bite me; I know it will bite me because it's a rattlesnake and that's what rattlesnakes do. I don’t try to reason with a rattlesnake…I just kill it. I don’t try to get to know the rattlesnake better so I can find a way to live with the rattlesnakes and convince them not to bite me. I just kill them. I don’t quiz a rattlesnake to see it I can find out where the other snakes are, because (a) it won’t tell me, and (b) I already know they live on my place. So, I just kill the rattlesnake and move on to the next one.

    I don’t look for ways I might be able to change the rattlesnake to a non-poisonous rat snake...I just kill it. Oh, and on occasion, I accidentally kill a rat snake because I thought it was a rattlesnake at the time. Also, I know, for every rattlesnake I kill, two more are lurking out there in the brush. In my lifetime I will never be able to rid my place of rattlesnakes. Do I fear them? No!

    Do I respect what they can do to me? Yes! And because of that respect I give them the fair justice they deserve.... I kill them...”
    Maybe as a country we should start giving more thought to the fact that these jihadists' are just like rattlesnakes, and act accordingly!
  9. Joined
    22 Jun '08
    Moves
    8801
    24 Sep '14 22:27
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That worked so well in 2003.
    we left too soon... job was not finished apparently eh?
  10. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    24 Sep '14 22:31
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    A friend of mine from Texas explained it all to me: “Here in west Texas I have rattlesnakes on my place, living among us. I have killed a rattlesnake on the front porch. I have killed a rattlesnake on the back porch. I have killed rattlesnakes in the barn, in the shop and on the driveway. In fact, I kill every rattlesnake I encounter.

    I kill rattlesnak ...[text shortened]... more thought to the fact that these jihadists' are just like rattlesnakes, and act accordingly!
    This never ending holy war is just resulting in this brand of Islamic radicalism having more widespread appeal and attraction. Killing rattlesnakes doesn't encourage more rattlesnakes, but invading the Middle East and killing the people there does result in more jihadists.
  11. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    24 Sep '14 22:33
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    we left too soon... job was not finished apparently eh?
    So you prefer a permanent occupation of the Middle East by Western powers?

    Even that foolish policy would not defeat jihadism; it is much more likely it would make it thrive.
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    25 Sep '14 00:20
    Originally posted by whodey
    Nonsense!

    All that needs to be done is equip the Taliban to go into North Korea, and then arm North Korea to take out ISIS, and then arm ISIS to take out Assad like Obama originally wanted to do. Add a few bombings here and there, and watch the world be saved.

    It all makes perfect sense.
    Don't give Obama any ideas...lol!
  13. Joined
    22 Jun '08
    Moves
    8801
    25 Sep '14 00:33
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This never ending holy war is just resulting in this brand of Islamic radicalism having more widespread appeal and attraction. Killing rattlesnakes doesn't encourage more rattlesnakes, but invading the Middle East and killing the people there does result in more jihadists.
    I don't really think so... but feel free to express your opinions, these people are killing their own. And are in the same category as a snake... who will stand up for them? why the Americans of course.. The Evil Empire,, what a joke.
  14. Joined
    22 Jun '08
    Moves
    8801
    25 Sep '14 00:36
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So you prefer a permanent occupation of the Middle East by Western powers?

    Even that foolish policy would not defeat jihadism; it is much more likely it would make it thrive.
    You're right, we should stand by and watch them kill their own people, and behead journalists,, how could I have missed this point,, DOH
    Of course everything is cool with these guys lopping off heads and killing Christians.. oh well..
  15. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    25 Sep '14 01:14
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    I don't really think so... but feel free to express your opinions, these people are killing their own. And are in the same category as a snake... who will stand up for them? why the Americans of course.. The Evil Empire,, what a joke.
    Let them stand up for themselves. Supposedly IS has about 20,000 fighters. The Iraqi Army has 300,000 men with tens of billions of dollars worth of heavy weapons provided by the US and other countries. The Kurdish Peshmergas have at least another 200,000 and various Sh'iite milities probably another 100,000 more. That's without even counting the Syrians.

    IF forces that outnumber IS by at least 25:1 can't defeat them without the US committing itself to mass killing, there's something going on that doesn't fit so neatly into the "terrorists v. people" narrative we're being provided. In any event, the idea that the US and Western powers are solely involved in this affair for humanitarian reasons should strain even your credulity.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree