Assault on the military

[Bfgrn]

Taxpayers money funding memorials to the politicians who fleeced them while they lived and again when they died.

It wold be funny if it wasn't so outrageous.

Could have used that spare cash in the Defense funding to do something more worthwhile..... like helping our Vets - ya know, people who have actually done something for the country.

Gawd, politicians suck!

LIST the fleece...

 

[Annie]

Taxpayers money funding memorials to the politicians who fleeced them while they lived and again when they died.

It wold be funny if it wasn't so outrageous.

Could have used that spare cash in the Defense funding to do something more worthwhile..... like helping our Vets - ya know, people who have actually done something for the country.

Gawd, politicians suck!

LIST the fleece...

You are just a tool. It's been done over and over.

 

[Bfgrn]

Taxpayers money funding memorials to the politicians who fleeced them while they lived and again when they died.

It wold be funny if it wasn't so outrageous.

Could have used that spare cash in the Defense funding to do something more worthwhile..... like helping our Vets - ya know, people who have actually done something for the country.

Gawd, politicians suck!

LIST the fleece...

You are just a tool. It's been done over and over.

Ted Kennedy never fleeced the people...unless HELPING people is evil, and killing people is pious...

 

[rdean]

Yeah... the CIA should have went in there found them arrested them and executed their asses. Instead we invaded two nations that neither attacked us nor were any real threat to us...and during the administration that led this attack North Korea the actual threat to anyone's security, the crazy guy that thinks he's god and what not acquired what? 8 nuclear weapons? Do you feel safe?

The CIA does not arrest people.

The Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan, and were the reason that al Qaeda was able to attack us.

Iraq was in violation of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement, thus the original state of hostilities existed.

Far from being innocent.

The need to scrap the Department of Homeland Security period. Of course, that would put my stepfather out of work, but what the Hell ever. Point is, national defense has nothing to do with invading foreign nations.

All this tells me as that your knowledge of military strategy is nil.

And we bomb everybody who is in violation of a forced agreement. Right?

Muslim etiquette demands that once hospitality is given, it's given as long as it's not violated. The Taliban couldn't have given up Bin Laden. However, they could have been negotiated into asking him to leave the country. Bush thought Shiites and Sunnis were working together because he didn't know the difference between the two. Understanding another culture is the key to success.

Republicans are bullies. They are NOT interested in "understanding", not when bombs and threats and saber rattling work so well. The problem, that's only an "illusion". In the long run, you moved two steps forward and twenty back. The two forward seemed to work so well, they can't see the twenty back. Not, "can't see, "refuse" to see.

 

[Annie]

LIST the fleece...

You are just a tool. It's been done over and over.

Ted Kennedy never fleeced the people...unless HELPING people is evil, and killing people is pious...

Funny, tell that to Mary Jo

 

[uptownlivin90]

It would be nice if it was so simple as simple as the CIA arresting the bad guys and removing them from the equation. Actually the last administration did a pretty good job of that and got little thanks and mostly grief for their efforts.

My point is, the Afghanistan could have been better handled, in matter of fact most situations like this could have been better handled without invasion. Now that we're stuck in this best thing for us to do is to cripple the Taliban to the point where they have no choice but to take any deal we give them, adn them pay them off to kill the Arabs they've been hiding.

It was the Clinton administration who, based on nothing more than North Korea's pledge to do so, gave North Korea five years, with no sanctions and no inspections, to dismantle their nuclear program.

Yeup and it worked because it only took two years for them to gain their first nuke in 2002.

What should he have done to stop it? What should George Bush have done to stop it? What should Barack Obama do to stop it? There are no easy answers to these questions.

The issue with an Iraq or an Iran or a North Korea having nuclear weapons is not the probability that they will nuke us with them. The danger is them exporting the weapons or technology to those who will import them into the USA and detonate them here. And no, I do not feel safe.

I'm glad I'm not alone. Regardless as it comes to Iraq I don't buy that at all. Saddam was our greatest ally against Islamic extremism in the middle east. We was a staunch secularist believed in women's education and equal opportunities for women, and was very anti-Islamofascism in Iran. Not to say I love the guy but he was probably the best thing that we had in the region. All we needed to do was control him and make sure he didn't try anything stupid. There were no nukes in Iraq, and we distabilized a government that was one of the few secular governments in the Middle East, now we've got the Islamic Republic back in Iraq... heckofajob.

Probably if we set aside partisan rhetoric, sat down over a cup of coffee and piece of pie and actually discussed what we each believe to be the most important issues before us, we would probably arrive at far more agreement than disagreement.

Sorry lady, your crazy.
LOL
No really there's no partisan rhetoric here. I agrue with all people about everything. But yeah we probably agree on more then we don't. So what why talk about what you agree on when it's so much more fun to argue about what you don't?

 

[uptownlivin90]

The Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan, and were the reason that al Qaeda was able to attack us.

The Taliban would sell Al Queda out for four dollars and a stick of toothpaste.

 

[Annie]

The Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan, and were the reason that al Qaeda was able to attack us.

The Taliban would sell Al Queda out for four dollars and a stick of toothpaste.

Not really. They had that choice for a lot more in 2001. I guess you forgot.

 

[Foxfyre]

It would be nice if it was so simple as simple as the CIA arresting the bad guys and removing them from the equation. Actually the last administration did a pretty good job of that and got little thanks and mostly grief for their efforts.

My point is, the Afghanistan could have been better handled, in matter of fact most situations like this could have been better handled without invasion. Now that we're stuck in this best thing for us to do is to cripple the Taliban to the point where they have no choice but to take any deal we give them, adn them pay them off to kill the Arabs they've been hiding.

At the old saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20. I do think we bungled in both Afghanistan and Iraq when we yielded to mushy leftwing demands and failed to use overwhelming force to do whatever had to be done to effect a quick and decisive victory. You can't fight a war both 'nicely' and effectively and expect to incur fewer casualties on all sides than will happen if you just go in and win the thing. And I think any war that is fought with any goal other than to win it and remove the real threat involved is an immoral war. If we can leave the people of the country better off than they were, so much the better. And in all places where we chose to win, we have done just that.

It was the Clinton administration who, based on nothing more than North Korea's pledge to do so, gave North Korea five years, with no sanctions and no inspections, to dismantle their nuclear program.

Yeup and it worked because it only took two years for them to gain their first nuke in 2002.

But again what could Clinton have done to stop it that would not have been condemned? What could Bush have done? What can Obama do? There are no easy answers for anybody.

The issue with an Iraq or an Iran or a North Korea having nuclear weapons is not the probability that they will nuke us with them. The danger is them exporting the weapons or technology to those who will import them into the USA and detonate them here. And no, I do not feel safe.

I'm glad I'm not alone. Regardless as it comes to Iraq I don't buy that at all. Saddam was our greatest ally against Islamic extremism in the middle east. We was a staunch secularist believed in women's education and equal opportunities for women, and was very anti-Islamofascism in Iran. Not to say I love the guy but he was probably the best thing that we had in the region. All we needed to do was control him and make sure he didn't try anything stupid. There were no nukes in Iraq, and we distabilized a government that was one of the few secular governments in the Middle East, now we've got the Islamic Republic back in Iraq... heckofajob.

But we didn't know that before we went in. The Clinton administration was convinced WMD was there. The U.N. was convinced WMD was there. Almost all the inspectors were convinced WMD was there. Almost all heads of state in the free world were convinced the WMD was there. And the Bush administration was convinced that WMD was there. Personally I think it was there, but in the 12-week delay while President Bush tried to get the U.N. to do something besides sit on their hands, I think Saddam moved it out of the country. His own key people have admitted that his nuclear and chemical WMD programs would have been going full steam ahead just as soon as he thought the coast was clear.

Again if foresight was even a smidgeon as good as hindsight, we would make a lot fewer mistakes.

I can't agree that we or the Iraqi people were better off with Saddam in power, and I can't see us dooming another 50,000 Iraqis to a slow miserable death with 12 more years of sanctions. But that's a subject for another whole other discussion.

Probably if we set aside partisan rhetoric, sat down over a cup of coffee and piece of pie and actually discussed what we each believe to be the most important issues before us, we would probably arrive at far more agreement than disagreement.

Sorry lady, your crazy.
LOL
No really there's no partisan rhetoric here. I agrue with all people about everything. But yeah we probably agree on more then we don't. So what why talk about what you agree on when it's so much more fun to argue about what you don't?

I argue when I disagree and agree when I agree, but I admit I do enjoy going toe to toe with somebody who can hold his own with an opposing argument and keep it civil. And I respect such people very much. And I agree with you that a discussion forum where everybody starts out on the same page would get really boring really fast.

 

[Elutherian]

If 'certain brown people' are intent on killing or maiming the red, yellow, black, white, and every hue in between people, values, and institutions of the USA, then such brown people should be stopped just as people of any other hue, shade, or stripe with such intent should be stopped by any means necessary.

Yeah, if that were actually happening I would agree with you. But in this situation, we are the invaders... they are trying to defend their country from a foreign occupier.

There are certainly pros and cons of whether we should be in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, and good arguments to be made on all sides of that debate. I have to respectfully disagree that anybody is defending 'their' country from a foreign occupier. I am quite sure that the majority of Iraqis do not view us as occupiers and those who do are sympathisers with the old guard dictatorship that the majority of Iraqis do not want back. Ditto for most of the Afghanistan people who do not want to go back to the horrendous oppression under the Taliban. Since the earliest acquisitions of land presumed to belong to nobody, the USA has never invaded any place with the intention of ruling over it or taking possession of it. As Colin Powell once remarked, all we have ever asked in return for fighting to liberate other people is a small plot of land where we can bury our dead.

I am not arguing for or against us being other there. I am saying that there are people who are determined to destroy us and/or deny freedom to others, and it is those people who are our enemy and who we target. The color of their skin is immaterial.

The last time I read the USA Constitution, providing for the national defense was a Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. government, and all leaders of government, including Congress and members of Congress are sworn to uphold that same U.S. Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Congress didn't declare this war, so it is illegal and unconstitutional. It is also not in our national defense to be over there... it's only provoking more attacks on Americans.[/QUOTE]

Using that criteria, every war since WWII has been an illegal war. Congress most certainly did authorize the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq however, and unless you consider any military aggression short of declaring war to be illegal, both were legal. I don't agree that terrorists intent on destroying us are provoked by our actions--I think if they couldn't use existing conditions, they would simply manufacture an excuse to hate and destroy us.

I can find zero authority in the Constitution for federal funding for museums or to launch an educational institute to honor Ted Kennedy or anybody else, and to weaken the ability of our military personnel to do their jobs in order to fund museums or launch new education institutes would have been judged illegal by former generations of Americans

I don't agree with the money being spent at all... I'm just remarking that it would be preferable to have it spent here than over there. I'd prefer if it was spent by individuals, who didn't have their money confiscated by the Federal Government, on useful things for the people of this country.

Here we can find agreement. I would prefer that the Federal government do only that which is implicitly mandated and authorized by the Constitution. Certainly the Federal government should be doing nothing that can be done more effectively, efficiently, and/or economically by the local governments or private enterprise. Such policy would restore our economy and our basic freedoms as nothing else will ever do.[/QUOTE]

====================================================================================


I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think if we withdrew our entire military presence and support from the middle-east, we would have nothing to fear from terrorists or muslim extremists. The people of the Middle-East (the majority of whom like America, but not it's foriegn policy) would withdraw it's support of Al-Queida and other terrorist organizations. Do you really think most Muslims are willing to give up their lives to kill us because we're rich and free? They don't want us over there... listen to Osama Bin Laden himself for the causes of 9/11. We will bleed Al-Queida of support and money if we don't give them reason to attack us. Drilling for our own oil and researching alternative energys would also be a great leap in that direction.

You have to realize that the training for 9/11 wasn't done in Afghanistan terrorist camps... it was done in Germany and Spain. Most of them were Saudi Arabians, and the U.S. Government would have had just as easy a time getting us to go to war with them as Afghanistan and Iraq. (of course they already give us oil for cheap, so there'd no reason to do that) All this is is a nation buidling scheme, in both Nations, which is not authorized by our Constitution and is not part of our national defense... in fact it usually ends up in blowback (like terrorism).

We can't bribe and invade our way out of trouble.

It's also important to understand that the Taliban was never our enemy until we invaded Afghanistan. Al-Queida and Osama Bin Laden were responsible for the planning... the Taliban, on the other hand, was our ally who we gave money to up until the invasion. We helped them come to power in order to keep the Soviet Union from obtaining the Oil lines there. The Taliban, who wanted the Communist regime out, gladly took our aid. All they are fighting for now is their nation back.

The puppet government we set up ain't no better than the Taliban, and it's up the people on what to do with their own country. We can't serve as the world's policeman and bleed our treasury dry, not to mention risk American lives doing something that is not authorized in the Constitution.

On a final note, I would say all wars since WWII were illegal under the U.S. Constitution, along with all Military ventures outside of formally recognized warfare. The executive has far too much power to use the military as his personal force to effect foreign policy. This is an abuse of Constitutional authority.

The state of perpetual warfare has led to a state of perpetual fear and subserviance to the Government. War is the health of the State... we have to remove it's power to make it so easily at the behest of the Military-Industrial Complex which Eisenhower warned us about.

We need to withdrawal from all countries, stop trying to run an expensive (financially and morally) empire that only brings us grief, and look to our own business (as far as government goes). We need to trade with other people, travel, talk, and promote freedom (all which the founders supported). What we are doing now is none of the above.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan, and were the reason that al Qaeda was able to attack us.

The Taliban would sell Al Queda out for four dollars and a stick of toothpaste.

Not really. They had that choice for a lot more in 2001. I guess you forgot.

They weren't getting bombed yet.

 

[Elutherian]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

How is that genocide of non muslim Blacks going in Africa?

Not so good. But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Elutherian]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

Yes. We must allow those brown people the freedom to kill innocents.

What WERE we thinking?

The people we're bombing didn't plan to kill anybody, nor would they if we weren't occupying their country. We are the one's murdering innocents.

We are the new Rome.

 

[California Girl]

Taxpayers money funding memorials to the politicians who fleeced them while they lived and again when they died.

It wold be funny if it wasn't so outrageous.

Could have used that spare cash in the Defense funding to do something more worthwhile..... like helping our Vets - ya know, people who have actually done something for the country.

Gawd, politicians suck!

LIST the fleece...

Guessing you're not a taxpayer, right?

 

[uptownlivin90]

At the old saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20. I do think we bungled in both Afghanistan and Iraq when we yielded to mushy leftwing demands and failed to use overwhelming force to do whatever had to be done to effect a quick and decisive victory. You can't fight a war both 'nicely' and effectively and expect to incur fewer casualties on all sides than will happen if you just go in and win the thing. And I think any war that is fought with any goal other than to win it and remove the real threat involved is an immoral war. If we can leave the people of the country better off than they were, so much the better. And in all places where we chose to win, we have done just that.

Sure, that's granted, war isn't gooshy and mushy, and people that think it is are idiots. Problem is I don't remember us ever having one set of clear goals in either invasion. So now the big issue is how do we win if we don't even know what our goal is? Hindsight ain't always 20/20 I'd disagree because our sight is so clogged up with bull that we don't even know why we're in the place we're in in the first place. What we have to figure out is what's our ultimate goal, a western democracy in both nations, or just getting the Hell out of there without f-ing up anything else? IDK what the strategy could be but I think there's a comfortable settlement between the two choices we can rely on. I DON'T think more troops are neccesary.

But again what could Clinton have done to stop it that would not have been condemned? What could Bush have done? What can Obama do? There are no easy answers for anybody.

Clinton did alot to postpone it, and really with a guy like Kim I think that's pretty much the best you can do until the man dies, kind of like Fidel. Let him die off and then hope for the best next time around. Now threatening them and throwing around all kinds of crazy ideas about we're going to invade your nation, that doesn't work. I'm a hawk when it comes to foreign policy when I feel like being one, but sometimes you've just got to shut people up through appeasement as long as you do not compromise the safety of your people.

But we didn't know that before we went in. The Clinton administration was convinced WMD was there. The U.N. was convinced WMD was there. Almost all the inspectors were convinced WMD was there. Almost all heads of state in the free world were convinced the WMD was there. And the Bush administration was convinced that WMD was there.

There was pretty large amount of political leaders here and abroad that were skeptical, but that's not the point.

I can't agree that we or the Iraqi people were better off with Saddam in power, and I can't see us dooming another 50,000 Iraqis to a slow miserable death with 12 more years of sanctions. But that's a subject for another whole other discussion.

I can't see us doing it, but I sure 'nuff can see the Islamic Republic of Iraq under the Shia cleriqs doing so. Plus let's play this one for a moment hwo many Iraqis HAVE died in total since the invasion? Compared to during the Saddam Regime? Once you answer that, are they better off now or then.

I argue when I disagree and agree when I agree, but I admit I do enjoy going toe to toe with somebody who can hold his own with an opposing argument and keep it civil. And I respect such people very much. And I agree with you that a discussion forum where everybody starts out on the same page would get really boring really fast.

Yeah I just got done arguing with this arab guy at A&W. Bastards gave me a cold burger. And yeah of course everyone agreeing would get boring it'd be like the Hannity Show.

"Well I think..." "well I agree... but... but... let me tell you what I agree with you more about."

 

[rdean]

The Taliban would sell Al Queda out for four dollars and a stick of toothpaste.

Not really. They had that choice for a lot more in 2001. I guess you forgot.

They weren't getting bombed yet.

They still wouldn't have done it. It's not the way Islamic culture works.

al Qaeda was a "guest" in Afghanistan. These are people who deliver "suicide" bombs. They would never be afraid of us, not when death means going to "heaven".

The best way would have been to ask the Taliban to "ask" al Qaeda to "leave" the country with a few "under the table" payments. If al Qaeda became an "impolite guest" and refused to leave, it's possible the Taliban might have felt insulted and forced them to leave.

The US went after al Qaeda and the Taliban in the worst way possible. Bluster, threats, saber rattling, bombs and terror. No diplomacy. No negotiations. Republicans see discussion and negotiation as "weak". Other see NOT doing those things as "stupid". Hence, the "impasse".

 

[uptownlivin90]

Not really. They had that choice for a lot more in 2001. I guess you forgot.

They weren't getting bombed yet.

They still wouldn't have done it. It's not the way Islamic culture works.

al Qaeda was a "guest" in Afghanistan. These are people who deliver "suicide" bombs. They would never be afraid of us, not when death means going to "heaven".

Islamic people aren't as one-sided as you've asserted. Afghani/Pashtun culture is far different then Arab culture (Al Qaeda). The only reason Al Qaeda was allowed in Afghanistan was because of the war against the Soviets. With our help Al Qaeda and the Mujahideen unified the Pashtun people's to beat the Soviet's asses. Al-Qaeda has had a strong presence there ever sense but they've always been treated the same way, as foreigners, and many Pashtun leaders can't f-ing stand the Arabs because the Pashtuns are a very proud race. THE ONLY reason Al-Qaeda was not turned over to the US by the Pashtun members of the Taliban is because they were running around saying that this was the war that Allah would crush America and bless Afghanistan in, and that the Taliban couldn't loose. Kind of, we helped you f-up the soviets now we'll take on the Americans. What they didn't know then and know now is how freaking powerful the US Armed Forces actually is... cause it aint like these folks watch CNN.

I think our biggest bet is to nuetralize the more moderate forces within the Taliban by offering them money, protection, and some sort of position of power in exchange for information on more dangerous member's where abouts and what not.

 

[Intense]

Yeah... the CIA should have went in there found them arrested them and executed their asses. Instead we invaded two nations that neither attacked us nor were any real threat to us...and during the administration that led this attack North Korea the actual threat to anyone's security, the crazy guy that thinks he's god and what not acquired what? 8 nuclear weapons? Do you feel safe?

The CIA does not arrest people.

The Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan, and were the reason that al Qaeda was able to attack us.

Iraq was in violation of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement, thus the original state of hostilities existed.

Far from being innocent.

The need to scrap the Department of Homeland Security period. Of course, that would put my stepfather out of work, but what the Hell ever. Point is, national defense has nothing to do with invading foreign nations.

All this tells me as that your knowledge of military strategy is nil.

And we bomb everybody who is in violation of a forced agreement. Right?

Muslim etiquette demands that once hospitality is given, it's given as long as it's not violated. The Taliban couldn't have given up Bin Laden. However, they could have been negotiated into asking him to leave the country. Bush thought Shiites and Sunnis were working together because he didn't know the difference between the two. Understanding another culture is the key to success.

Republicans are bullies. They are NOT interested in "understanding", not when bombs and threats and saber rattling work so well. The problem, that's only an "illusion". In the long run, you moved two steps forward and twenty back. The two forward seemed to work so well, they can't see the twenty back. Not, "can't see, "refuse" to see.

You are the kind of Fool that Insurgents depend on every time they are in a jam. Jack Ass is too good a term for you. Join the other side please. You will do less harm in the end.

 

[Intense]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

How is that genocide of non muslim Blacks going in Africa?

Not so good. But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Muslim encroachment has everything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Intense]

Not really. They had that choice for a lot more in 2001. I guess you forgot.

They weren't getting bombed yet.

They still wouldn't have done it. It's not the way Islamic culture works.

al Qaeda was a "guest" in Afghanistan. These are people who deliver "suicide" bombs. They would never be afraid of us, not when death means going to "heaven".

The best way would have been to ask the Taliban to "ask" al Qaeda to "leave" the country with a few "under the table" payments. If al Qaeda became an "impolite guest" and refused to leave, it's possible the Taliban might have felt insulted and forced them to leave.

The US went after al Qaeda and the Taliban in the worst way possible. Bluster, threats, saber rattling, bombs and terror. No diplomacy. No negotiations. Republicans see discussion and negotiation as "weak". Other see NOT doing those things as "stupid". Hence, the "impasse".

I am so sorry that we ignored their feelings. These are really sensitive two faced, murderous thugs that we offend every time we make a choice left or right. You should convert and join them. I'm sure they will immediately recognize your intentions, and you will be safe. Let them know that we are really sorry for not surrendering sooner, converting to Islam, and spending the rest of our lives praising them. How could we be so blind to the Truth of Islam, The Peace of the mass grave. We should apologize more. Everybody !!! Stop doing what you are doing right now!!! Ask yourself, "Would Islam Approve?" If not, Punish yourself Immediately!!! Beat your Kids!!! Round up all the non virgins!!!! Dean You speak for us.