271–280 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protestors and cops having tussles in the streets falls short of my bar for "brutal violence"; shooting a woman in the face certainly qualifies, but I am not seeing anything like that so widespread that it could motivate a drone ban like some people in this discussion are asserting. The political violence in America right now doesn't even come close to what was normal in living memory in the 20th century. America tod…
I think you are correct about the political violence being higher in 20th century USA. For anyone doubting it, just look at the black experience in the south during the civil rights movements. Where I am concerned is that the violence we are seeing today from the federal authorities is being endorsed by the federal government. In fact all leadership is doubling down and turning up the rhetoric whereas during the 50's…
One example of many, Lon Horiuchi was charge by the state of Idaho for the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver. His case was then moved into the federal system which promptly dismissed it and made him a free man. Even today,trying to discuss this case gets bogged down in irrelevant debate about the validity of Randy's political beliefs, which shouldn't matter a single wit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans. That invasion turned out to be a complete disaster that probably benefited Islamist radicals more than anybody else. But it's a mistake to think that the neocons didn't believe their own bullshit. The top leadership really believed they could turn Iraq into a liberal democracy a…
I can understand that point of view from a U.S. citizen's (and allied West) point of view that you think US is really ideological. But as a non-US person, even when US pretended to be ideological, there is an underlying reality of maintaining hegemony, access to resources, etc. When there was a large scale genocide in Bangladesh by Pakistan, US not only implicitly supported Pakistan, but also attempted to block/attac…
1. Relationship between USA and Kurds. Kurds have been helping Americans, putting lives on the line, are a rare democratic and free side in the region, but are constantly being violated by Americans despite that.
2. Syria. No problem supporting the literal Alqaeda leader!
3. Just a history of supporting dictators. Chile and Americas, Asia, Europe (Spain, Greece, Portugal).
4. Even currently, no problem supporting e.g. Saudis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Well that's not what I've seen said by law enforcement officers analyzing the video footage, but then again I avoid watching news media that serves the interests of the current administration. It's upsetting so many people repeat propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I mentioned "pretense" in the sense of US pretending to be the good guy.
What do you mean by pretense? The word pretense to me means “we’re gonna actually try this and let’s see how it goes” The United States has literally never done that and we know that because internal documentations for pretty much anything always have some kind of American benefit Nexus it is not based on any type of foundational belief that transcends the concept of “we’re gonna do whatever the people who are the lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That logic also means they shouldn't be banned under 2nd amendment protections, no?
No, you can think of them more like unarmed artillery shells. Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions? Even if they were considered arms for the purpose of 2a this isn’t a ban on drones but a specific manufacturer. They government can definitely refuse to grant a manufacturer license to sell on this country.
No, but you can walk down the street and buy all the components.
To buy the shells, there’s a $200 tax (each!) and a form you have to fill out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was 30 years of rot, neglect, theft and corruption that did the majority of the damage to Russia's post-USSR military. The army they have today in Ukraine is only a fraction of what they were capable of in the 1980s.
Don't forget, they choked on Afghanistan too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you can think of them more like unarmed artillery shells. Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions? Even if they were considered arms for the purpose of 2a this isn’t a ban on drones but a specific manufacturer. They government can definitely refuse to grant a manufacturer license to sell on this country.
> Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions? No, but you can walk down the street and buy all the components. To buy the shells, there’s a $200 tax (each!) and a form you have to fill out.
SAM can't be bought for any tax and they come with lifetime in jail if you have them, even just for peaceful purposes.[]
Giving up air military supremacy isn't something the USA is going to yield to its citizens. The tax is reflective of the fact that machineguns and destructive devices can't be banned as they are "arms" that can merely be taxed, but the US doesn't considered air warfare weapons generally to be bearable arms.
As drones become a dominating form of air superiority I would expect they start to become more like SAMs -- not bearable arms but rather arms that merely having in your arms mean you go in a cage forever even if you have an NFA stamp affixed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A) I absolutely was not. I was refuting that we sent $175B to Ukraine. We sent weapons, and spent money in the USA. Basic reading comprehension would be a useful skill for you to have in this thread... see I literally declared the US spent money in both posts. I was just saying where the money was spent.
To quote Wikipedia on the broken window fallacy: The money spent on the war effort (or peacetime defense spending), for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, or other sectors of the economy. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct – but hidden – cost (via foreclosed production possibilities) to other sectors. A basic understanding of economics would be useful…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A) I absolutely was not. I was refuting that we sent $175B to Ukraine. We sent weapons, and spent money in the USA. Basic reading comprehension would be a useful skill for you to have in this thread... see I literally declared the US spent money in both posts. I was just saying where the money was spent.
To quote Wikipedia on the broken window fallacy: The money spent on the war effort (or peacetime defense spending), for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, or other sectors of the economy. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct – but hidden – cost (via foreclosed production possibilities) to other sectors. A basic understanding of economics would be useful…