How many here think this constitution stuff is a bunch of crap?
- Thread starter buddy
- Start date
my intention wasn`t to dredge up your fond memories of our defeat in viet nam....but to draw the obvious comparison`s between the lack of will that has infected our country over the last 45 years.....from the viet nam era to the present....represented in no small part by the liberal media`s droning,relentless negative reportage...
i would reiterate why allowing an unstable regime access to wmd`s is so crucial in the middle east,but i`ve stated it so many times on here that it`s redundant....
for marco who asked..."""We kicked down Adolph's door after he put a gun to his own head....
Then decide to let Saddam go back to the palaces after Gulf War I"".....
we didn`t decide to let saddam go back to his palaces after gulf war 1...the u.n. did......it was a u.n. sponsored opeartion...with the u.s. again doing much of the "wet work"...
if removing europe and russia`s cash cow had been part of the deal,the u.n. would have left saddam where he was....sitting cozy in kuwait....controlling even more of the world`s oil supply....and probably contemplating more expansionism...
j.cdunkdogs posts....""
I don't think Americans are turned off by the shedding of blood by American troops, but rather by the perception that it is for nothing. ""
rather than repost rationale for "why" the administration felt saddam had to be dealt with,i`ll just repost what i provided in capper`s thread when he asked about a "litmus test" for countries wishing to possess nuclear weapons...when marco chimed in with.....
""Weren't we the ones helping Saddam out during thier scrimmage against Iran?""
The only standard would appear to be our current image of the country requesting nukes"".....
in a nutshell....
we also helped stalin during ww2.....we saw him as the lesser of two evils.....
the same with saddam and iran...back in THE CARTER years....and the hostge issue days...
unless you are nostradamus...or miss cleo...you have no way of knowing that allies will remain allies......
look at the french....our enemies as surely as the nose on your face...and the japanese...our true allies...
that old question about us befreinding saddam back in the day is idiotic.....a crock of shit...you`ll realize it if you use your head...shifting tides...allegiances...the way of the world...
mr c posts.......""Are conservatives right if in 20 years time there is democracy in the middle east but the US is in economic ruins?""
as the leader of the free world....the litmus test is that the middle east is the most crucial and volatile region in the world....in regards to economic issues....and world security issues....you`d be irresponsible...as the leader of the free world.........to take a laisez faire attitude regarding the region.....
if we stood by and watched despots and theocracies arm to the teeth,as master capper intimated("who are we to decide who goes nuclear?")..........then it`s very possible that the world would look much differently than it does right now...
because,israel would not have bombed saddam`s nuclear reactor out of existence in the early 80`s....therefore,saddam would have had nuclear weapons when he invaded kuwait.....
would the world have had the coulumes to remove him from kuwait?...knowing that a nuclear confrontation could ensue?....and if they had still chosen to remove him,would he have sent nukes into israel instead of scuds?.....trying to create an arab/israeli conflict?...which he has vowed to do for 25 years....maybe starting ww3?...and ruining the region for a few decades....
instead of "JUST BURNING" all the oil fields...
or do we allow him to systematically gain control over a third of the world`s oil supply?...all the while using the revenue to become stronger and stronger militarily?.....
of course iran couldn`t stand by while this happened....they`d nuke up....hell,they`re doing it anyway...as europe and russia run interference....
do you really feel comfortable with the mullahs in iran and saddam having nukes?.....
i`m sure that israel...the only democracy in the reason doesn`t...
we see how n.korea contiues to blackmail the world with the nuclear threat...
even though i have the utmost respect for kim jung il....who reportedly shot 9 holes in one on his first golfing excursion.....lol..(.and i`m not kidding......those people actually believe that shit)...that scares the hell out of me...
thankfully,he`s not located in the crucial middle east...
believing that slitting the throat of someone that mishandles a koran scares me....
believing that 70 virgins await a homicide bomber....that scares me,too...
i`d say that nuclear and biological weapons anywhere near these sweethearts should cause any prudent person to loose sleep....
i would reiterate why allowing an unstable regime access to wmd`s is so crucial in the middle east,but i`ve stated it so many times on here that it`s redundant....
for marco who asked..."""We kicked down Adolph's door after he put a gun to his own head....
Then decide to let Saddam go back to the palaces after Gulf War I"".....
we didn`t decide to let saddam go back to his palaces after gulf war 1...the u.n. did......it was a u.n. sponsored opeartion...with the u.s. again doing much of the "wet work"...
if removing europe and russia`s cash cow had been part of the deal,the u.n. would have left saddam where he was....sitting cozy in kuwait....controlling even more of the world`s oil supply....and probably contemplating more expansionism...
j.cdunkdogs posts....""
I don't think Americans are turned off by the shedding of blood by American troops, but rather by the perception that it is for nothing. ""
rather than repost rationale for "why" the administration felt saddam had to be dealt with,i`ll just repost what i provided in capper`s thread when he asked about a "litmus test" for countries wishing to possess nuclear weapons...when marco chimed in with.....
""Weren't we the ones helping Saddam out during thier scrimmage against Iran?""
The only standard would appear to be our current image of the country requesting nukes"".....
in a nutshell....
we also helped stalin during ww2.....we saw him as the lesser of two evils.....
the same with saddam and iran...back in THE CARTER years....and the hostge issue days...
unless you are nostradamus...or miss cleo...you have no way of knowing that allies will remain allies......
look at the french....our enemies as surely as the nose on your face...and the japanese...our true allies...
that old question about us befreinding saddam back in the day is idiotic.....a crock of shit...you`ll realize it if you use your head...shifting tides...allegiances...the way of the world...
mr c posts.......""Are conservatives right if in 20 years time there is democracy in the middle east but the US is in economic ruins?""
as the leader of the free world....the litmus test is that the middle east is the most crucial and volatile region in the world....in regards to economic issues....and world security issues....you`d be irresponsible...as the leader of the free world.........to take a laisez faire attitude regarding the region.....
if we stood by and watched despots and theocracies arm to the teeth,as master capper intimated("who are we to decide who goes nuclear?")..........then it`s very possible that the world would look much differently than it does right now...
because,israel would not have bombed saddam`s nuclear reactor out of existence in the early 80`s....therefore,saddam would have had nuclear weapons when he invaded kuwait.....
would the world have had the coulumes to remove him from kuwait?...knowing that a nuclear confrontation could ensue?....and if they had still chosen to remove him,would he have sent nukes into israel instead of scuds?.....trying to create an arab/israeli conflict?...which he has vowed to do for 25 years....maybe starting ww3?...and ruining the region for a few decades....
instead of "JUST BURNING" all the oil fields...
or do we allow him to systematically gain control over a third of the world`s oil supply?...all the while using the revenue to become stronger and stronger militarily?.....
of course iran couldn`t stand by while this happened....they`d nuke up....hell,they`re doing it anyway...as europe and russia run interference....
do you really feel comfortable with the mullahs in iran and saddam having nukes?.....
i`m sure that israel...the only democracy in the reason doesn`t...
we see how n.korea contiues to blackmail the world with the nuclear threat...
even though i have the utmost respect for kim jung il....who reportedly shot 9 holes in one on his first golfing excursion.....lol..(.and i`m not kidding......those people actually believe that shit)...that scares the hell out of me...
thankfully,he`s not located in the crucial middle east...
believing that slitting the throat of someone that mishandles a koran scares me....
believing that 70 virgins await a homicide bomber....that scares me,too...
i`d say that nuclear and biological weapons anywhere near these sweethearts should cause any prudent person to loose sleep....
StevieD
Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,920
Ferd, what gives you or Bush or anyone the right to put American kids lives in danger because of some pipe dream of Democracy in another country. Or military is set up to protect us. Not to spread democracy in another country. Nevermind that when we went to war we were told we going in for WMD, never was the words we are going in to spread democracy and make the Iraqi's safe ever uttered by Lyndon Baines Bush until very deep into this mess he created.
:scared Damn, I didn't even post in this thread and Stevie is coming after me. Or did you just want my opinion?
Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,920
Ferd, what gives you or Bush or anyone the right to put American kids lives in danger because of some pipe dream of Democracy in another country. Or military is set up to protect us. Not to spread democracy in another country. Nevermind that when we went to war we were told we going in for WMD, never was the words we are going in to spread democracy and make the Iraqi's safe ever uttered by Lyndon Baines Bush until very deep into this mess he created.
:scared Damn, I didn't even post in this thread and Stevie is coming after me. Or did you just want my opinion?
My opinion is that under our system as it currently exists, Congress has the right to declare a conflict a war, and then the military, which is now voluntary, reacts. I don't think that is a perfect set up, but I can't think of a better way, can you? Without our elected leaders leading the way, who would decide when miliatry action was necessary? Would we vote?
I don't like what is going on in Iraq because it seems to me that we have lost the handle and I never, ever thought or said that we could even begin to establish a democracy in Iraq. It ain't going to happen.
I don't think anybody has the right to send someone to war .... unless that person has volunteered to join the service. A draft is a different animal, but those not wishing to serve in the military during draft times should still perform some sort of service in my opinion.
I do like your new moniker for W. It works on two levels: the involvement in a foreign war and the fact that LBJ took more vacation days than any other president in history per time served. I believe he took 462 days in 5 years.
I don't like what is going on in Iraq because it seems to me that we have lost the handle and I never, ever thought or said that we could even begin to establish a democracy in Iraq. It ain't going to happen.
I don't think anybody has the right to send someone to war .... unless that person has volunteered to join the service. A draft is a different animal, but those not wishing to serve in the military during draft times should still perform some sort of service in my opinion.
I do like your new moniker for W. It works on two levels: the involvement in a foreign war and the fact that LBJ took more vacation days than any other president in history per time served. I believe he took 462 days in 5 years.
You argue with much passion, garden., and that is admirable. I only chimed in briefly on the "conscience" question to hit a note that I thought tends to be overlooked, IMHO.
Democracy is a cumbersome system of government to have when one of these long, protracted military campaigns happens. A wargamer is much better off with Monarchy, Theocracy, or some form of tyranny. It makes focusing the country's efforts and resources much easier, and avoids the annoyance of dissent.
I'd like to see us succeed in Iraq. We'd better, or else. If we don't, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
Democracy is a cumbersome system of government to have when one of these long, protracted military campaigns happens. A wargamer is much better off with Monarchy, Theocracy, or some form of tyranny. It makes focusing the country's efforts and resources much easier, and avoids the annoyance of dissent.
I'd like to see us succeed in Iraq. We'd better, or else. If we don't, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
No problem, I was just laughing about it. hopefully no one is in favor of killing Americans or any other nationalities. But as a former supporter of this war, I just don't see it headed to any conclusion. It looks like it will be similar to the way it is now for some time. Can't see any use it keeping this sham alive. It looks like the majority of the country is starting to realize the same.
"It wasn't the liberals, or the media, that "caused" America to "lose" any war, it was our conscience as a nation."
Really conscience about what?---If it was deaths that occurred what about the over one million that occurred soon after as the result of our leaving no onesaid squat about????
I would say your statement would be correct if you had said --
"select conscience of select element"
Was war lost on battlefield or on political front?
Really conscience about what?---If it was deaths that occurred what about the over one million that occurred soon after as the result of our leaving no onesaid squat about????
I would say your statement would be correct if you had said --
"select conscience of select element"
Was war lost on battlefield or on political front?
Last edited:
Good questions, both. I'll take the first one first.
Each of us has a conscience, an inhibiting sense of what is prudent. I argue for the existence of an "American conscience," or a collective conscience for the group.
Individual conscience speaks with votes, and those elected act for us as our collective conscience. The beauty of Democracy is that we can peacefully agree to put power into the hands of elected leaders who then take action for the Nation consistent with that conscience. Its a collective wisdom, and our Founding Fathers and Mothers believed it was the best way.
Few would dispute that nations, like individuals, can always be counted on to act in their own self-interest, and to inhibit actions which are not prudent for the nation.
Richard Nixon campaigned in '68 on a promise to end the war. Voters liked that. He was elected, and re-elected, and finally ended the war in 1973. Nixon, who is recognized today in many circles for his astute foreign policy, got the US out of Vietnam because, I must assume, he believed it was in our own collective self-interest.
The deaths of "over one million [Vietnamese]," (a figure I'll accept for the purposes of argument), is tragic. But I'm sure that Nixon, listening to the conscience of the Nation, realized that American blood is dearer, and was better shed somewhere else.
Why would Nixon, or any other head of a democracy in his position, allow a couse of action merely because he is swayed by some faction, i.e., liberals, when the best course of action lies elsewhere? He might get charged with treason. No, Nixon knew what he was doing was in the Nation's best interest.
For the second question, regarding where the war was lost, my answer has two parts. First, all wars must win on the political front. It is a constant war of words at home. That is what Democracy is all about. So I guess its fair to say it was lost there.
Second, the hidden premise of the question is that Vietnam was winnable. I think it was, but winning was only half the equation. There is always a cost to the nation in these wars, and the collection agency is very cruel.
Each of us has a conscience, an inhibiting sense of what is prudent. I argue for the existence of an "American conscience," or a collective conscience for the group.
Individual conscience speaks with votes, and those elected act for us as our collective conscience. The beauty of Democracy is that we can peacefully agree to put power into the hands of elected leaders who then take action for the Nation consistent with that conscience. Its a collective wisdom, and our Founding Fathers and Mothers believed it was the best way.
Few would dispute that nations, like individuals, can always be counted on to act in their own self-interest, and to inhibit actions which are not prudent for the nation.
Richard Nixon campaigned in '68 on a promise to end the war. Voters liked that. He was elected, and re-elected, and finally ended the war in 1973. Nixon, who is recognized today in many circles for his astute foreign policy, got the US out of Vietnam because, I must assume, he believed it was in our own collective self-interest.
The deaths of "over one million [Vietnamese]," (a figure I'll accept for the purposes of argument), is tragic. But I'm sure that Nixon, listening to the conscience of the Nation, realized that American blood is dearer, and was better shed somewhere else.
Why would Nixon, or any other head of a democracy in his position, allow a couse of action merely because he is swayed by some faction, i.e., liberals, when the best course of action lies elsewhere? He might get charged with treason. No, Nixon knew what he was doing was in the Nation's best interest.
For the second question, regarding where the war was lost, my answer has two parts. First, all wars must win on the political front. It is a constant war of words at home. That is what Democracy is all about. So I guess its fair to say it was lost there.
Second, the hidden premise of the question is that Vietnam was winnable. I think it was, but winning was only half the equation. There is always a cost to the nation in these wars, and the collection agency is very cruel.
JC....nice response....
Too bad earlier administrations hadn't followed a conscience, there would have been over 50,000 American youth alive.....
Funny how some people see those million Vietnamese dead after we left and let them finish thier civil war......where were all the bleeding hearts when we turned Gettysburg into a cemetary?
Perhaps they were minding thier own business within thier sovereign boundaries?
Too bad earlier administrations hadn't followed a conscience, there would have been over 50,000 American youth alive.....
Funny how some people see those million Vietnamese dead after we left and let them finish thier civil war......where were all the bleeding hearts when we turned Gettysburg into a cemetary?
Perhaps they were minding thier own business within thier sovereign boundaries?
