America has No Allies in a War with Iran!

Well, that's another one I should've mentioned as partakers in European (Eastern) atrocities...the Byzantine Empire, which murdered millions of Greeks. And that's odd because most of them were Greek (at least in language).

 

Why is it that people who can't make a rational/objective argument, must always try to shame those that can. Rational/critical thinkers base their conclusions/opinions on the objective facts, honesty, and a positive moral compass. Not on abject denial, blind loyalty, and self-serving pseudo-sophistry. Many Americans were branded as Un- American, because they actually wanted to see the facts, that supported the government's accusations. What was the evidence that supported accusing Iraq of having WMD's? What evidence supported an attack on a Battleship, that brought us into the Viet Nam war? What was the evidence, that supported the theory that Soleimani posed an imminent and immediate threat to the lives of our soldier, who are illegally occupying Iraq? What was the evidence that proved that Assad was gassing his people? What is the evidence, to justify spending trillions of dollars on counterterrorism, to save the lives of 5 citizens a year since 911? Are you proposing, that we believe whatever our government tells us, without question, or be branded as being unamerican? What form of government do you think we live in?

It is the rest of the world that sees through American propaganda. It is Trump, that is responsible for the decline of global leadership. Especially, with his policy of "power without authority". His recklessness has eroded the US position in the world. Within three years, Trump has exercised the power of the US, in a manner that has eroded the authority and the legitimacy of America’s strategic dominance. Trump has caused massive damage to our country's reputation, and has accelerated a decline in confidence of our traditional allies and friends. All propaganda are biased and misleading. Whether it be American, or Iranian. It is always best to stick with the facts, only.

My commonsense alone tells me, that if the largest advanced military in the ME, had planned to carry out a ballistic attack to cause the greatest loss of life, then they would have. Unlike the US, Iran's attack was a symbolic retaliation, not a literal retaliation(eye for an eye). Not only were the missiles targeted in places, to guarantee zero casualties, but the US was warned hours earlier about where and when the attacks would take place. Of course we couldn't care less about the 9 Iraqi officials, that were also killed in the assassination of Soleimani. So LUCK had nothing to do with it, even if Trump was actually there. Or, do you think that planned missile attacks on aggressors, are designed to cause the least number of casualties? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51042156

[/QUOTE]

Reliable to whom? Other than those ignorant of the consequences of American isolationism, most Americans do not agree with his irresponsible actions. He has done so many irresponsible things, that has made the world less stable, and less secure. What have we gained, that is far more than our losses? I didn't think so. Just more empty rhetoric for the gullible. If your friends are abandoning you, it is a pretty good indication, that your policies and actions, just might be wrong. The only thing in reality that America is ranked No.1 in, is military expenditure. It is Norway, that is ranked No. 1 in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The UK is standing by what is right, not what is wrong. Iran is NOT the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. In fact, it is our ally Saudi Arabia, that is a far larger state sponsor of terrorism, than Iran. Followed by Syria, India, Pakistan, Sudan, and Turkey. Also on the list, are the USA and the UK. Both are countries that also sponsor Terrorism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

Baseless alarmist rhetoric, that panders only to the ignorant, and the gullible. Do you even know the purpose of NATO? Is our commitment to our allies this shallow? Do as we say, or piss-off? This sounds more like someone, who couldn't convince a drowning man to get out of the water. I just don't get how anyone can buy into this administration's insanity, let alone try an defend it. https://www.nato.int/wearenato/why-was-nato-founded.html​

 

I think most Americans are still living in the 18th century.​

 

Your logic is flawed. It is incorrect to say that we are spending x amount of dollars since 9/11 to save the lives of 5 citizens per year. What you would correctly conclude from your referenced data is that we are spending x amount of dollars per year so that ONLY 5 citizens per year are killed ( not saved). You have no way of knowing how many would have been killed if we did not spend x amount of dollars in that pursuit.

​

 

What is Trump doing? Does he know?

Last week, Trump called on five other JCPOA signatories -- China, France, Germany, Russia and the UK -- to join the US and pull out of the deal.
Trump withdrew a year and half ago even though the agreement permanently barred Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Trump destroyed the accord because it was negotiated by his predecessor Barack Obama.

Now Trump wants an agreement that permanently bars Iran from making a nuke.

However, it certainly doesn't help the overall situation that, short of maximum pressure sanctions on Iran, the President has not said how he'll get Iran to the negotiating table to reach a new agreement, or even what his new deal would involve.

Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, has ruled out negotiations on its nuclear program with the United States so long as sanctions remained in place. He has said Trump cannot be trusted.

Leaders of three European powers on Sunday expressed continued support for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, rebuffing an explicit call by President Donald Trump last week to abandon the troubled accord.

Trump destroyed the agreement and Iran has pulled out of the agreement. The Europeans don't have much of a chance as long as Trump is President.

Just another reason Trump should be removed from office. He nearly started a disastrous war with Iran, and his actions may still. Trump is a danger to our nation's security.

He can't even tell the American people why he ordered the assassination of Soleimani, but Americans know why. He needed Republican support in his Senate impeachment trial, and they wanted Trump to do something about Iran. They were weary of Trump's inaction to Iranian provocation.
.

 

Again, I said Russia to an extent.
They are in that region so they do like to have a path to markets, so they have meddled. I know this and have said so. And they have had terrorist attacks. Not to the extent the west has. At least in the last 30 yrs.

No, I'm not getting it yet. We, the west, have had more attacks recently, we have done the most meddling. Especially recently.
All of 9-11 attackers were from SA, yet we consider them one of our best allies in the ME. They are also the most stringent in muslim law.
They are also state sponsors of terrorism. Perhaps more than Iran.

Saudi Arabia[edit]
See also: Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks
While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors, Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.[98][99]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

 

9-11 pops into mind.
Shootings in USA by some muslims.
Europe dealt with vehicular terror in recent past.

 

[/QUOTE]

Trump destroyed the Iranian nuclear agreement that permanently barred Iran from making a nuke because it was signed during the Obama administration. Trump's destruction of the JCPOA led us to where we are now. 176 people were killed because of Trump's provocation.

Does he want a war with Iran to prove a point? The Iraq war lasted eight years, cost nearly 5,000 lives, 25,000 wounded and over a trillion dollars. Iraq was severely weakened by eight years of war with Iran (1980 - 198, the Gulf War (1991), and the weapons inspection regimen of the '90's.

Iran has long since recovered from the war with Iraq, and has no such handicaps. The Iraq war would be a walk in the park compared to a war with Iran. Iraq had no allies. Iran has allies in Syria, the Shiite militias in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and probably a few more I failed to mention.

Because of Trump's provocation, that war still might happen.

And you give whole-hearted support to Trump. Do you live in the U.S. or somewhere else?

 

Trump destroyed the Iranian nuclear agreement that permanently barred Iran from making a nuke because it was signed during the Obama administration. Trump's destruction of the JCPOA led us to where we are now. 176 people were killed because of Trump's provocation.

Does he want a war with Iran to prove a point? The Iraq war lasted eight years, cost nearly 5,000 lives, 25,000 wounded and over a trillion dollars. Iraq was severely weakened by eight years of war with Iran (1980 - 198, the Gulf War (1991), and the weapons inspection regimen of the '90's.

Iran has long since recovered from the war with Iraq, and has no such handicaps. The Iraq war would be a walk in the park compared to a war with Iran. Iraq had no allies. Iran has allies in Syria, the Shiite militias in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and probably a few more I failed to mention.

Because of Trump's provocation, that war still might happen.

And you give whole-hearted support to Trump. Do you live in the U.S. or somewhere else?[/QUOTE]

You're the same member here who claimed a single American carrier battle group in the Gulf of Oman could "turn Tehran into a parking lot".(your exact words).

If just one American CBG could do that then the rest of the war would be no problem at all for the U.S.

Were you in error then?
Or now?

 

What war with Iran? Did I miss something? I don't know what the OP is talking about.

More liberal hysteria. It never ends.

 

This was my poor attempt at sarcasm, to highlight what the largest spending budget in the world is being used for. With all due respect, it is YOU whose conclusion is misrepresenting the data. It is also true, that our spending may have contributed to the death of 5 people as well. The take-away should have been obvious. The odds of anyone being killed in a terrorist attack in the US is 1 in millions. And, at that level of risk, diverting Trillions of dollars away from our real domestic needs, is just unwarranted. Anyone can make any argument about facts that are NOT in question., Therefore, my argument is only about the facts that are. So please, what is the data that supports your argument(or example), that even ONE American life would be directly saved by this massive expenditure? And not through other already established intelligence means? https://www.cato.org/blog/chance-being-murdered-or-injured-terrorist-attack-united-kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States These are the facts, and everything else is self-serving hype, political propaganda, and social manipulation by the MSM.

My logic could possibly be flawed, since I am only human. But, anyone who thinks that spending Trillions of dollars, based on the assumption, that they are preventing the death of more than 5 people per year from Islamic terrorists, really do need a priority check. Especially, when you compare this to, the almost 100 children dying from lethal malnutrition in America each year. There is zero justification for using this level of revenue in the prevention of Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil. It looks like the fear, that is inherent in Terrorism is working. We are simply allowing a government's manufactured fear, to financially prevent us from addressing our more relevant domestic issues.

There is CERTAINLY a way to test your theory, that there is no way of knowing how many more Americans would have been killed, if we didn't spend the Trillions. What do you think the numbers would be if the US would,

Stop selling military arms to countries, to help them commit genocide in other countries(Yemen). Or, to help them continue committing human rights violations(Israel).
End all regime-change wars, and American imperialism
Get its bases and troops out of the Middle East countries.
Lift all illegal sanctions, and rejoin in the Iran treaty, and all other treaties.
Stop killing the citizens of the ME.
Offer compensations for the atrocities the US have committed.
Stop acting as the world's moral and political police.
Stop demonizing, patronizing, and lying about the culture, religion, customs, and practices, of the people in the ME.
Sever our assistance to the expansion efforts of Israel, and our alliance with Saudi Arabia.
Stop increasing tariffs, and lift travel bans that targets mostly Muslim countries.

Do you think that the Islamic death toll in America, would then increase or decrease? If you think they would increase, then why? Do you think that they are just bad people, and hate our freedom, as Bush said? My LOGICAL guess would be, decrease. This is based on WHY we would be a target of their attacks. Do you think that an Islamic Fundamentalist, simply woke up one morning and decided to hate the US, and attack them because they are different? If you believe that, then we're done here. I believe, that the people of the ME couldn't care less about our freedoms, beliefs, customs, or politics, as long as we don't thrust our beliefs onto others. If we didn't support, and sell arms to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and thus support their terrorist and expansion agendas, these people might still see us as only infidels, instead of murderers and invaders. Ask yourself, what would you do if Russia put bases on US soil, just to make sure that the homeless could afford housing, the sick could receive universal healthcare, all workers were afforded a good minimum wage, that our infrastructures were maintained, and that anyone could get the education that they wanted? Be honest, and not try and look for ambiguity, absolutes, vocabulary, poor grammar, or FLAWED logic, that you can exploit.

 

Why?.

 

Could you be more specific? Or, expand on your comment?

Are you saying that we SHOULD,

Keep selling military arms to countries, to help them commit genocide in other countries(Yemen). Or, to help them continue committing human rights violations(Israel).
Continue trying to change governments that do not cooperate with our corporate interests, or stand in the way of American imperialism
Keep bases and troops in the Middle East INDEFINATELY.
Increase, and keep all our illegal sanctions, and not rejoin in the Iran treaty, and all other treaties. You believe in a new cold war?
We should continue our killing of men women and children, in the ME.
We should continue our illegal occupations in the ME.
We should not offer any compensations, for the damage, lives, and atrocities we have committed.
We should continue acting as the world's moral and political police, even though we are a poor example of both.
We should continue to demonize, patronize, and lie about the culture, religion, customs, and practices, of the people in the ME.
We should NOT sever our assistance to the expansion efforts of Israel, and our alliance with Saudi Arabia.
We should continue to increase the number of tariffs, and keep all travel bans on all people from mostly Muslim countries.

Why? Because my country represents who I am. I am not a pathological egotist, with delusions of grandeur and an obsession with power. Even though my leader may be a true megalomaniac, my country certainly is not.

Why? Because these practices only breed hatred, suffering, instability, uncertainty, divisiveness, isolationism, and even death.

Why? Because our actions violate International and Domestic laws.

Why? Because our actions are immoral, and cause unnecessary suffering and death.

Not sure what you are trying to imply, or insinuate. So I will reserve my comments, until you can deposit something more than just, WHY?

 

You're the same member here who claimed a single American carrier battle group in the Gulf of Oman could "turn Tehran into a parking lot".(your exact words).

If just one American CBG could do that then the rest of the war would be no problem at all for the U.S.

Were you in error then?
Or now?[/QUOTE]

Do you think that the act of killing Iraqi men women and children will foment love for Americans, or hatred for Americans?
Do you think that our preemptive policies, while illegally occupying a foreign soil, will decrease the number of terrorists, or increase the number?
Do you think that before a country murders the citizens in another country, or tries to change their government covertly, or through proxies, that clear evidence should be paramount to justify its actions?
Do you think that American interventionism, endless regime-change policies, and American exceptionalism, should be abolished?
Do you think we are justified in spending Trillions, on preventing, historically, the death of 5 people per year since 911. and NOT on our urgent domestic issues?
Do you think that a war with Iran, should NOT be based on the number of provocations(or one-ups)?
Do you think that Pakistan, Russia, China, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait, would not lend their support to Iran's over 500,000 strong army?
Do you believe(like Steven Miller), that the powers of the president to protect our country, shall not be questioned?
Do you believe, that it is the people who should control the government, or that it is the government that should control the people?
Do you think that it is Congress that should be consulted, before deploying American troops overseas, in harms way?
Or, like this narcissistic sociopath, just don't give a s**t? Under the guise of power, without responsibility?

Why aren't Trump supporters outraged over the unnecessary loss of life, that we are responsible for? I don't get it. Show me the evidence. What people THINK about the US, the actions of people or groups 10-20 years ago, what the US may THINKS a person, group or country, DO NOT justify their preemptive actions. We are responsible for our own actions, in real time, and must have the evidence to justify any of our actions. We are a country where the rule of law constrains the use of unlimited power.

Stay out of the affairs of sovereign countries. Instead, lets just focus on solving our own social issues. Also, it seems to me that having a congested parking lot, would make our navy an easier target, for ballistic missiles.

 

I think that Kim, and Tulsi says it best. This is Not a video for chicken-hawk war mongers, people in denial, people afflicted with TGS, or people that lack critical objective thinking abilities. For the rest, this will be, by far, the best history of the ME, and of American involvement, that I have ever heard. Enjoy.

 

With all due respect...

911 was an inside job (per the mountain of evidence).

Ruling out a possible false flag, a lone nut, or a U.S.-sponsored Islamic radical group...any genuine Islamic "terrorist" acts within the U.S. on behalf of a foreign Islamic group can only be the result of the decades of Western foreign policy hostility & agression towards the ME & other Islamic nations/peoples.

Same explanation regarding European Islamic "terrorist" acts. Some, such as the Airport bombing, Paris shooting, and London subway bombing suggest they may have been false flag events (ie, like 911, injuries and/or deaths may be present, but were not the result of the actions of an organized Islamic group).

 

My conclusion?. What conclusion have I made? That you misstated the meaning of the data you were referencing. For crying out loud, the number of people killed does not equate to the number saved. That notion is silly. It doesnt make any sense. Even if you are using it as sarcasm, you are still using flawed logic in communicating that sarcasm. You may as well conclude that we spent 20 million dollars eradicating smallpox, and since nobody now dies of smallpox, therefore we wasted our 20 million dollars. I made a very short, straight forward reply to you, which is that your logic is flawed. Nothing more, and nothing less. That retort did not need this long reply on what amounts to a different topic. You have no idea what is my position on that topic because I have said nothing about it, yet you are sitting here crowing that I am the one misrepresenting the data. Please cut and paste my text that you feel is "misrepresenting the data", or what "conclusion" that I have drawn? It does not exist. The only assertion that I made is that you were misrepresenting the meaning of that data, and I am 100% correct on that assertion.

Sometimes the best reply is to simply say "my bad" and move on. You do not have to fight everything tooth and nail, and you yourself know that my assertion is correct which is why you have tried minimizing it by now calling it sarcasm.

 

What is it that makes propagandists think they are rational and objective?

 

Propagandists? Propagandists can be rational, but never objective. A propagandist only peddles in manufactured truths, to disseminate misleading and biased information. Facts are irrelevant to propagandists, if they don't support their specific point of view. But, a critical and rational thinker, bases his point of view on verifiable objective evidence. Like Tulsi says, "the truth will always scare those that traffic in lies." Or words to that effect.

Since propagandist are not always rational, and certainly not objective, I can't answer your question. But, if you are asking what makes the arguments deposited by critical/independent thinkers, rational and objective, then the answer is "verifiable objective evidence".

So, in an argument, the exchange of ideas, should be based on at least some facts. Any argument based solely on opinions, is an exercise in futility. Try arguing the Theory of Evolution, to religious fundamentalists. Regarding Trumps actions, the facts are indisputable and transparent. It is only our emotions, that try to distort these facts.

 

I guess you won't go away so I will.

 

You CONCLUDED that I misstated the meaning of the data that I used as reference. You CONCLUDED, that I was equating the number of people killed per year, to the number of people saved per year. You CONCLUDED, that I was implying, that the government is knowingly spending trillions of dollars, simply to save 5 people per year. You CONCUDED that my logic was flawed, using a straw man to misrepresent my comments. Simply asserting baseless assumptions, don't make them so. Was it only my sarcasm, that you could exploit in my entire post? Or, did you agree with the rest of my post?

Do you really think that anyone believes that our government would knowingly spend Trillions of dollars on counter intelligence, just to save 5 people from dying at the hands of Islamic extremists per year? Do you really think our government would spend Trillions of dollars, funding resources, to address a risk factor that is one in millions? Although the government may propagandize that they are saving thousands of Americans from becoming a casualty of Terrorism, but in reality, only 5 people per year since 911 have died from terrorism. Hence, the sarcasm. So either the odds of dying from a terrorist attack, the number of Americans who have died from terrorists attacks, or the amount spent by the government preventing terrorist attacks are all wrong, or my interpretation of the data is correct. If not, please point it out. Lets hear YOUR interpretation of the facts.

Where do I say in my post that you have misrepresented the data(straw man)? I asked you a simple question based on your comments, "What is the evidence, to justify spending trillions of dollars on counterterrorism, to save the lives of 5 citizens a year since 911?". Presumably, this massive expenditure is not being used to take the lives of 5 people each year, so where is this questioned flawed, or incorrect? You then stated, "You have no way of knowing how many would have been killed if we did not spend x amount of dollars in that pursuit.". This implies that the amount of spending, is somehow linked to the number of people killed. You provided no evidence to support this claim. I then stated that we actually DO have a way of knowing this, and listed them(you ignored). Do you disagree with the things I have listed, or agree? Are any of them illogical and/or inaccurate?

My purpose, was to point out the actual threat level posed by Islamic terrorist, based only on the actual facts. I guess I am not the bandwagon sort of guy. I guess I just don't like being manipulated, on how I should think.

Smallpox is a physical disease, that killed over 300M people in the 20th century. Are you seriously equating our justification for eradicating a very high risk threat to life, to our endless war on terrorism? Are you also implying, that we will eradicate all terrorists, if we just spend more money? Just like the money we spent eradicating smallpox? Wow, now that is faulty. We can NEVER win a war on terrorism, anymore then we can ever win a war on drugs. If you want to reduce Islamic terrorism in the US,

GET OUT OF THE ME.
STOP TRYING TO OVERTHROW GOVERNMENTS
STOP KILLING THEIR CITIZENS
STOP STEALING THE OIL AND GAS IN THE ME
STOP FUNDING TERRORIST
STOP ARMING TERRORIST
STOP WASTING TAXPAYER'S MONEY
RESPECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHER COUNTRIES

Or, like Bush, do you think that terrorists just hate the US because of our freedoms? I really hope you can see past your biases, and develop a different perspective that is closer to the truth. Maybe you will then be able to see the real role the US has played in the creation, and continuance of terrorism throughout the ME. Maybe you should also take your own advice.

 

LOL....YES and every one of those "conclusions" are 100% correct as evidenced by your post that said....."What is the evidence, to justify spending trillions of dollars on counterterrorism, to save the lives of 5 citizens a year since 911? "

Lets see....
-Equating the number of people killed per year to the number of people saved.....yep your sentence did that. Check

-Knowingly spending trillions of dollars to save 5 people per year....hmm....I never said anything about "knowingly", but you are definitely saying that they are spending trillions to save 5 people per year. Yep your sentence said that (sans the word knowingly in both my conclusion and your sentence).....Check

-Your logic is flawed......based on the above 2 correct conclusions.....yep, your sentence shows that.....Check

LOL....What is your point? That you employ shockingly flawed logic when drawing your conclusions? If so.....JOB WELL DONE.


PS....Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post, but I dont respond to non sequiturs that serve to change the subject. I addressed you about one sentence that you wrote. I have backed up every assertion that I made referencing that sentence. You can try to call it sarcasm if you like, and if that was truly your intention, it is possibly the worst and most pointless attempt at sarcasm that I have personally ever witnessed. There is really nothing else to discuss. Silly long winded tangents are a colossal waste of time and a not so subtle attempt at taking the focus off the fact that the logic you employed was inarguably wrong as I explicitly stated. A person with integrity would simply say "my bad", and then move on, because it is really not that big of a deal. That definitely doesn't describe you or your actions. I am not sure what that says about you, but it is nearly impossible to argue that it is a positive trait...unless of course you want to pull out some more flawed logic, in which case you can probably rationalize darned near anything.

 

I decided to take another tact and look at your claim in the full context within your statements on the topic. ......

"Other than our government propagandizing that Terrorism must be eliminated in countries thousands of miles away, and is also the greatest threat to our freedom, safety, and our way of life, what specifically justifies this irrational manufactured fear? What is the objective perspective? Since 911 to 2015, 3,024 people have died at the hands of foreign-born terrorists(Islamic extremists). This includes the 2,983 people who died in 911. This means, on average since 911, 5-6 people(out of 330M), have died as a result of Terrorists per year. By comparison, 20,000 people have died from opioid overdose per year. Over 15,000 people died from Murders and Homicides per year. Over 8000 Veterans have committed suicide every year. 300 people have died from falling off a ladder each year. 40,000 people die in motor vehicle accident per year, and over 50 people have died from bee and wasp stings each year since 2000."

So that long list of facts and figures was simply recited to set up your sarcasm?....LOL....REALLY? It looks like flawed logic to me. Which ones are we supposed to believe, and with which ones are you just being "sarcastic"? How is one supposed to know?

 

Clearly, you are only interested in the perception of truth, and NOT in the actual truth. It seems more important to you not to be seen as wrong, then it is to be seen as right. Hence the need to keep repeating just how you are 100% right. The facts are indisputable truisms. They do not require mine or your interpretations. They are what they are. I use these facts to support my conclusions, NOT to misinterpret or misstate the facts. In fact, how do you misstate facts?

My clear and obvious point, was that just maybe we should put those trillions of dollars, into addressing and preventing the deaths in the US, that have a much higher risk factor, than one in 15 million, for over 19 years. I would have thought that having clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, a well maintained infrastructure, free education and Medicare, and a living wage and affordable housing, would have warranted a much higher priority. If this is an illogical, irrational, or a silly expectation to you, then so be it. I just don't understand why we need to waste our resources(Trillions), that only helps the MIC, war profiteers, Corporate Contractors, and Defence Contractors? And, obviously Trumps re-election hopes. Since 911, the death toll as a result of our war on terrorism, and invasion of Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, is almost half a million people killed(244,000 civilians). If you want to stop the spread of terrorism, GET OUT OF THE ME, simple. We are the terrorist in those countries. JUST LEAVE. What are our soldiers dying there for? What is the end game plan? Why are we afraid to make our case before NATO, and the UN? Why don't we provide the evidence to support our illegal actions? Why are we not supported by our allies? Why did Trump tell Israel and Saudi Arabia about his plans, and not NATO or his own Congress? Never mind, these are just more questions you will avoid answering(that was sarcasm). Denial, is a much safer place to hide from the truth.

I can't help you to discern the difference between sarcasm and sincerity(truth), except that sarcasm is implicit, and truth is explicit. But I am 100% certain that most people have no problem discerning the difference. Also, constantly repeating that my logic is flawed(without evidence), serves only to convince yourself, not anyone else. I really wish you could have addressed any of my questions, so I could at least see the perspective you were coming from. Unfortunately, you are under the illusion, that if you keep parroting the same thing over and over again, and avoid providing evidence, that you can maintain the illusion of truth. In other words, self-deception.

But in case I am wrong in my assessment, let me try again. You made the statement, "You have no way of knowing how many would have been killed if we did not spend x amount of dollars in that pursuit.". Which I disagree with for logical reasons(appeal to Ignorance, and circular reasoning), and listed why. But we DO KNOW how many people HAVE died in spite of the Trillions spent. So, my question is, what evidence can you posit to supports this assertion? Do you think we might save Trillions, if we just GET OUT?

In either case, I think we are truly off topic. And, I doubt you are able to parrot anything differently. So, I think we're done here.

 

If that is the "clear and obvious" point that you were trying to make, then you should have made that point without resorting to misleading numbers using clearly and obviously flawed logic in order to arrive at those numbers. Therein lies MY clear and obvious point.

As far as the subject and subsequent "number" that you were trying to derive, you are neglecting to take into account the worst case scenario into your reasoning. When it comes to terrorism, the worst case scenario is inarguably a nuclear bomb, very likely detonated somewhere like New York City. Is this likely to happen in 2020 or even 2021?......The chances are probably infinitessimal. Is it likely to happen in the next 50 years?.........I certainly think that you could legitimately call that a very realistic threat over that time period. What would such an occurrence cost? Surely it would include the death of several million people, along with almost incalculable rebuilding costs, the collapse of Wall Street, and our economy as a whole for a significant period of time. The human costs alone would be far too much to bear. When you table the subject in this manner, the calculus changes drastically. All of a sudden, it does not become about some bogus trillions per 5 people per year, and instead it becomes about the reality of the situation which is that it is a long term national security issue, much like military spending.

If in fact the counter-terrorism money spent over the next 50 years were to avert a nuclear detonation in New York City, then every penny spent during that time period would unquestionably be worth it, and you really could not legitimately argue that it would not. What if the counter- terrorism efforts decreased the odds of that catastrophic event by 50%?....I would still say it would be worth every penny. I am not exactly sure what type of teased logic that you are using to arrive at your claim of "trillions" being spent (perhaps it is more sarcasm?), but whatever amount that is currently being spent would be well worth it if it significantly reduces the odds of such a catastrophe. My point is not to try and quantify what number is worth it ( and perhaps we can cut back a bit), rather I am just correctly pointing out that your grossly oversimplified analysis is ignoring the underlying logic behind all forms of defense spending. Money spent on defense in general is an investment into future security including the money saved from averting subsequent national security disasters. Such a calculation most certainly does not lend itself to nonsensical oversimplified bumper sticker type statements, which is essentially what you are espousing on the subject.


PS....please try to keep your response to a reasonable length that sticks to this one topic. I notice that you like to ramble on about several topics at once, and when one does that, nothing is ever accomplished. It only results in people having two entirely different discussions that go absolutely nowhere.