Trump escalates conflict, war eminent bringing the whole region into the conflict, NY Times
Trump with no long term plan impulsively involved the US in yet another protracted conflict in the Middle East, Washington Post
Trump bows to the Neo Cons and puts the US in yet another attempt at regime change, CNN
Trump bumbled his way in another no win situation risking American lives, he will never be re-elected, his presidency is finished, MSNBC
Washington (CNN)In the hours before the attack on the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday, the Iranians spotted a US drone flying overhead and launched a surface-to-air missile at the unmanned aircraft, a US official told CNN.
The missile missed the drone and fell into the water, the official said.
He did bumble his way into a no win situation though.
(no message)
My read is that the pentagon's war hawks wanted to escalate the violence but he resisted. Now the Times does spin it that he was listening to Tucker Carlson's admonition that if he attacks he will lose the next election... but that is actually sound advice.... and he took it,
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-strike.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I also hope that we are now unleashing cyber hell on the Iranian regime.
There were supposedly ten or so military options put on the table and I assume that nitwit Bolton favored the most extreme, whatever that was. Not sure how hawkish Pompeo was but he is no dove. I wonder if the plan all along was to just do a cyber retaliation and reports of a planned military attack on missile sites and radar sites was just a smokescreen? Except I doubt Trump would have been that clever.
He found some 2017 video of Bolton pledging to celebrate in Tehran by 2019 (celebrating the toppling of the current regime).
Of course, CNN is attacking Trump for resisting the advice of Bolton...when they were attacking Trump for moving us towards war the day before.
If anyone’s policies have been absolutely proven bankrupt and bereft already it’s Bolton’s.
They should put him on trial for the deaths in Iraq.
Yet there he is, NSA.
(no message)
Our cyber capabilities are very advanced. Way ahead of the rest of the world...one guy from our Cyber Command told me that the difference between the Russians & Chinese and us is that we don’t get caught.
The Stuxnet virus was ours an targeted Iran.
Their systems are more vulnerable than ours. And we spend far more on developing capabilities.
(no message)
I agree that on average, we are more sophisticated in all ways...but that is a double edged sword, as the saying goes.
We are very much more dependent on such systems. If we lose that advantage, we are more degraded than the Iranians will be if they lose that. Just ask yourself: If you gave the Iranians the choice of both Iran and US losing their military capabilities dependent upon "cyper-power," would they take that? Of course they would, because they know it would hurt us more than it would hurt them.
And that, by the way, is why they want nukes. I don't think they ever envision destroying New York City. Rather, they want the ability to pop a high altitude EMP nuke to knock us back 500 years in ability to wage war (and to feed our people).
Hopefully, we are ramping up our defensive and offensive capabilities. It would be nice if Silicon Valley was more enthusiastic about defending this country.
Link: https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/433431-are-we-underestimating-irans-cyber-capabilities
The uniformed military is the most dovish element in the foreign policy process.
The hawks are at Foggy Bottom and the NSC.
That is one reason driving off Mattis was a big mistake by Trump. Looks like his replacement will be an ex-lobbies for the Military Industrial Complex. I don’t see how that can be a good thing.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
......and when people said that the drone was worth 150 million they would act disgusted tha he would value money over life. This from the group that kills their unborn to save for their second home.
(no message)
it doesn't involve taking another's life.
Then you should probably get a little more educated on the topic. It is not the second-home-owning-rich having abortions, it's poor people without access to contraception.
Link: Why Do Poor Women Have More Abortions?
When you have people who think it is OK (and in one case funny) to kill unborn, innocent children, and those people are moralizing against their political oppoenents who want to defend the country against aggressors to prevent greater conflict, the hypocrisy is just thick, and it is not wrong to point that out.
Cheated on every one of his spouses (including with a porn star), numerous credible sexual assault charges, brags about committing sexual assault, advocate for torture and the death penalty, immigration policy based on cruelty as a deterrent (e.g., children in cages), etc.
At this point you guys are picking and choosing which items are moral and which are no longer important. Speaking of hypocrisy.
(no message)
I have never defended Trump as an objectively moral candidate.
I have, however, argued that his election was the correct moral option when given the choice of a person who supports the killing of babies moments before birth (as Hillary did during the debate) and someone who is less evil than that.
I never argued that the actions you list were moral, so I have done no picking and choosing. Your accusation is way off base.
When faced with a heinously evil candidate and a less evil candidate, it is morally permissible to choose the less evil candidate. I assume you agree with that. Please correct me if I am wrong. But, if you do agree with that principle, then your post makes no sense. The morally correct option can be to support Trump, even if he is not 100% morally correct himself.
The problem with the immoral person is OK as long as the policy is moral argument...is that is not based in reality. Trump is immoral and therefore his policies are often immoral.
The FBI wants to investigate the Khashoggi killing and Trump wants to sweep it under the rug...let a murderer off the hook. How is that moral?
He continues to use federal employees as a bargaining chip, making their lives harder for no good reason...how is that moral?
He immigration policy is based on cruelty. There is no denying this. It might be effective (but probably not...they are still coming), but you can't argue it is moral.
He wants to abandon our long-time Kurdish allies in Syria that have fought and died advancing US interests.
He refused to put his business interests into a blind trust, and is obviously using the presidency to enrich himself personally.
It is one thing to have voted for Trump. It is another to continue to support him without question....and to claim your support of his is based in morality??
(no message)
Morality can be split into two different classes:
1) consequential morality, like murder, burglary...acts with non-consenting human victims...this is the traditional jurisdiction of both the Church and the State; and
2) non-consequential morality, on the other hand, relates to acts which may be sinful or self-detrimental, but have no non-consenting human victims...this is the proper jurisdicton of the Church, but not necessarily the State.
Because the Church only uses persuasion to convince people to act a certain way, the Church can speak to all aspects of morality, both consequential and non-consequential. Thus, as a Catholic, I may believe that it is wrong to use non-abortive birth control like a condom (really, conception control, so no victim is present) and it is wrong to use abortive birth control (post-conception birth control, so a victim is present). But, I don't impose the non-consequential morality on others using the power of the State.
Because the State primarily uses power to convince people to act a certain way (e.g., uses fines and jail time), the State is properly limited to only consequential morality (prevention of victims). Thus, I believe is it proper that the State should stop people from killing other people. This is not purely a religious belief because it is consequential morality. Even atheists support the State addressing consequential morality in general (e.g., anti-murder laws, anti-burglary laws, etc.).
I believe in separation of Church and State, so in general I do not support the State moving into non-consequential morality issues. I leave that stuff to personal belief. Note, however, that I do feel it is legitimate for an individual (or elected representative) to use religious reasoning when voting for instances in which the State tries to encourage or subsidize non-victimizing but religiously wrong behavior through persuasion by bestowing benefits from the State. This is in contrast to the the State using it's power of punishment to stop non-victimizing behavior. So, while I might not support the State banning non-abortive birth control (under penalty of law...use of power/coercion), I would actively oppose the State subsidizing non-abortive birth control (e.g., by handing out money...use of persuasion). Does that make sense?
I completely understand opposition to abortion. You can say a life is being taken. Some may disagree, but I understand the position. I was raised in an Irish Catholic home and have NEVER understood the opposition to birth control. A friend's dad, Catholic, said the church wants more recruits that's why they oppose birth control. There is no real reason other than blind faith to believe the church's teaching on this issue.
....St Thomas Aquinas reasoned that there needs to be two things present with intercourse: 1) conjugal love, and 2) procreation.
The lack of the former results in a loss of the loving aspect of the relationship while the lack of the latter results in a loss of responsibility.
I would recommend that you rad it rather than dismiss it. Aquinas was certainly one of a small handful of people who could be argued to be the greatest minds in all of history.
What the Church teaches is absolutely the best way to live one's life. If you fully embrace the Church's view on this, your happiness in this life will be maximized. I really do believe that if you, as an adult, consider every new life to be a gift, however that life comes to be, whatever personal plans you need to change to accommodate that new life...if you consider that life to be just a part of living life to its fullest, you will absolutely maximize your happiness on this earth. If you take a different view, you will fall short of maximizing the possible happiness you could obtain in this world. I believe the Church's teaching is a happiness maximizing teaching.
I am not well equipped to explain the sinfulness of an individual not maximizing his personal happiness on this particular issue. But, I don't have to understand it. I just believe what the Church has taught for 2000 years...and every time I live the way the Church tells me I should live, I end up being a happier person...it really is amazing.
I don't believe conspiracy theories that the Church just wants new followers. If it was all about numbers of butts in the seats, and dollars in the collection basket, they would do a lot of things differently, don't you agree?
Link: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
I am not that deep into the faith to follow such ancient teachings moral or otherwise. Maybe you could say I see all this as a "living document" and do not believe intercourse must have creation as an element. I got off that bus a long time ago but I do respect others views and followings. However, I do disagree when others such as Rick Santorem(sp?) want to push it onto others.
Rick Santorum: "I was asked if I believed in [contraception], and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions. ... [Banning birth control would be dumb] for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it."
Sounds like you are worried about a bogeyman created by the Left.
I'm a 100% Catholic believer (and, of course, a failure at implementing that belief in my day to day life), but that doesn't mean I want to use the power of the state to force people to live like Catholics. The last time the Church tried that, it was a total catastrophe for the Church...not to mention that it is contrary to the principle that conversion requires a free choice.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/rick-santorum-the-idea-im-coming-after-your-birth-control-is-absurd/2012/01/06/gIQAOVy0fP_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44a2686390fa
He's been all over the map on this and seemed to change as the polls changed. At first he was against birth control, there was a backlash, he flipped again and then in an interview with Fox claimed birth control promoted promiscuity, took away personal responsibility, and was harmful to women and society. I guess it depends on which interview you quote.
In the mean time, I will note again, that being "against birth control" is like saying you want abortions to be rare, or you wouldn't personally get an abortion. It doesn't mean you want to ban abortions. Same with Santorum on contraception.
And tried to sneak in abortion agents under the heading of contraception.
Nobody Is suggesting limiting actual contraception.