War Being Decided on Op-ed Pages instead of Battlefield?

[CSM]

A thought on the original subject...

op-ed pages are published public discourse. The sentiment of the people expressed in public discussion is ultimately what dictates a democracy. This democracy has been deviating from its original intent for a half century or so. Handing over power of war and nuclear deployment to the President was a major blow to the strength of the people in this nation. It is sickening what has happened.

Dang, all this time I thought it was the people's vote that dictated a democracy (!) and, hot damn, I thought the President was allocated the power of war in the original Constitution. I guess your beef is with the Founding Fathers of this nation and not the current administration.

What is truly sickening is that you would post something like this and expect the rest of us to buy into it!

 

[manu1959]

A thought on the original subject...

op-ed pages are published public discourse. The sentiment of the people expressed in public discussion is ultimately what dictates a democracy. This democracy has been deviating from its original intent for a half century or so. Handing over power of war and nuclear deployment to the President was a major blow to the strength of the people in this nation. It is sickening what has happened.

op-ed letters are not votes, they dictate nothing.

half a century ago was 1956? president was eisenhower care to link me up to the laws eisenhower passed that changed the course of history.

who would you like to have the power of war and nuclear deployment?

 

[T-Bor]

Does anyone have any proof that the media actually helps the enemy fight better ? Can someone please provide measurable statistics on this ? Otherwise thats a load of BS.....

 

[jillian]

Jillian posts:



WTF, tell me, if you can, what is accomplished by the publication of pictures of coffins?

How does that help, or hurt the war effort for EITHER side?

I await your timely reply.

Media is not supposed to either help or hurt the "war effort". The fact that you want it to help the "war effort" (meaning the admin) explains why you think anything that gives facts not to your liking is somehow treasonous.

Oh... as for my "timely reply". Sorry, I don't work for you, so you don't get to set my deadlines. :tongue1:

 

[insein]

Media is not supposed to either help or hurt the "war effort". The fact that you want it to help the "war effort" (meaning the admin) explains why you think anything that gives facts not to your liking is somehow treasonous.

Oh... as for my "timely reply". Sorry, I don't work for you, so you don't get to set my deadlines. :tongue1:

Ok then. how about reporting the facts that Iraqi civilians are showing favorable opinions about the progress of their country? Why not report the new schools, new power plants, new water treatment plants, new businesses and all that are propping up everyday there? Why not report the infant Iraqi economy that is growing with the new hope of a Free Iraq? Why is it that if we watch the news we think Iraq is a barren hellhole from which there is no escape for our troops? Is there no positive news to be heard from in Iraq or is it that positive news doesnt fit the agenda of the "unbiased" media that "wants to make a difference in the world" (2 contradictory concepts if i there ever was).

I think you are being alittle too naive, jillian. Is there nothing good in Iraq? or is it that anything good isnt newsworthy?

 

[1549]

Dang, all this time I thought it was the people's vote that dictated a democracy (!) and, hot damn, I thought the President was allocated the power of war in the original Constitution. I guess your beef is with the Founding Fathers of this nation and not the current administration.

What is truly sickening is that you would post something like this and expect the rest of us to buy into it!

I implied that public sentiment (which is also expressed through voting) dictates a democracy. I also stated that public sentiment is what is expressed in op-ed columns. That is what makes criticism of them so ridiculous.

The President has to seek authorization from Congress for war (though I love that you accuse me of posting bullshit). The Bush administration tried to avoid this for Iraq, but ultitmately had to do so. Congress betrayed the people and our system of government when they passed this little number:

‘‘those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons’’

As seen with Iraq, the President can make ties to al-queda and 9/11 appear out of the sky.

op-ed letters are not votes, they dictate nothing.

half a century ago was 1956? president was eisenhower care to link me up to the laws eisenhower passed that changed the course of history.

who would you like to have the power of war and nuclear deployment?

Actually Esienhower had foresight. He thought the Democrats belief in a military build up was dangerous (see my sig), worried about "the disastrous rise of misplaced power", and did not favor an imbalance of power. The problems started with the "Cold War-riors"...mostly democrats. Over time, the Republicans have become the proponents of international idiocy and excessive military spending.

In response to your last question: Congress and the president should share such immense powers.

Eisenhower had it all right:

We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

 

[Gunny]

Does anyone have any proof that the media actually helps the enemy fight better ? Can someone please provide measurable statistics on this ? Otherwise thats a load of BS.....

The load of bs is demanding some sort of physical measuring stick for something anyone can see with their own eyes .... that is providing they aren't purposefully blinding themselves with moronic political ideology.

 

[Gunny]

I implied that public sentiment (which is also expressed through voting) dictates a democracy. I also stated that public sentiment is what is expressed in op-ed columns. That is what makes criticism of them so ridiculous.

Public sentiment dictates democracy through voting. Public sentiment does not dictated op-eds. Your attempting to tie one to the other is absurd. An op-ed is the opinion of an editor, who is more often than not the lackey and politicla voice of whoever signs his check.

The President has to seek authorization from Congress for war (though I love that you accuse me of posting bullshit). The Bush administration tried to avoid this for Iraq, but ultitmately had to do so. Congress betrayed the people and our system of government when they passed this little number:

‘‘those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons’’

As seen with Iraq, the President can make ties to al-queda and 9/11 appear out of the sky.

That quote from Congress seems perfectly reasonable in enabling the President to accomplish a mission. But then I forget, you are one of those nimrods who insist on us having to fight with our hands tied.

Actually Esienhower had foresight. He thought the Democrats belief in a military build up was dangerous (see my sig), worried about "the disastrous rise of misplaced power", and did not favor an imbalance of power. The problems started with the "Cold War-riors"...mostly democrats. Over time, the Republicans have become the proponents of international idiocy and excessive military spending.

In response to your last question: Congress and the president should share such immense powers.

Eisenhower had it all right:

Excessive military spending? GMAFB. Please DO tell how many days you have spent in the US Armed Forces? None? SHUT THE FUCK UP until you have to make do with "rigged" equipment because a Democrap President won't provide you with what you need, but willd damned sure STILL send your ass right out on the front line without it.

 

[1549]

Excessive military spending? GMAFB. Please DO tell how many days you have spent in the US Armed Forces? None? SHUT THE FUCK UP until you have to make do with "rigged" equipment because a Democrap President won't provide you with what you need, but willd damned sure STILL send your ass right out on the front line without it.

I have as much experience as our Vice President and Deputy Secretary of Defense combined...and I also have 6 fewer deferments! Your criticism is only directed at those who disagree with you...

Your negative experience was probably caused by a poor allocation of funds, then again sometimes it doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem. M-16's fucked up in Vietnam because of too much tinkering, radios failed for some units in the first desert storm, and it has been said that soldiers in this war were not provided with proper body armor. Of course the multi-million dollar smart bombs are still a crap shoot and we probably spend billions on experimenting with shit that does not work.

It does not matter for men like Dick Cheney though, the more money spent...the more he gets his back scratched.

 

[1549]

that is providing they aren't purposefully blinding themselves with moronic political ideology.

You're pretty good at that.

 

[Gunny]

I have as much experience as our Vice President and Deputy Secretary of Defense combined...and I also have 6 fewer deferments! Your criticism is only directed at those who disagree with you...

Your negative experience was probably caused by a poor allocation of funds, then again sometimes it doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem. M-16's fucked up in Vietnam because of too much tinkering, radios failed for some units in the first desert storm, and it has been said that soldiers in this war were not provided with proper body armor. Of course the multi-million dollar smart bombs are still a crap shoot and we probably spend billions on experimenting with shit that does not work.

It does not matter for men like Dick Cheney though, the more money spent...the more he gets his back scratched.

My criticism is directed at one person in particular who doesn't have a damned clue what he's talking about. Attempting to deflect your lack of experience therefore firsthand knowledge by pointing out yet another with no firsthand knowledge doesn't cut it HERE, boy.

When it comes to allocations for weapons and materiel, money is EXACTLY what is called for.

And my "negative experience," you sanctimonious son of a bitch cost better men than you their lives. Get it NOW?

 

[Gunny]

You're pretty good at that.

The only person on this board more delusional than you is psychoblues. You allow your utopian ideology to completely blind you to reality and it's going to cost you BIG one day. Too bad I won't be around to laugh my ass off about it.

 

[manu1959]

You're pretty good at that.

tell me about your ideology.....i by i dream of genie head bob make you president today...tell me what do you do about americas top ten list:

the economy
the border
iraq
israel
nk
iran
the price of gas
abortion
no child left behind
taxes

 

[1549]

My criticism is directed at one person in particular who doesn't have a damned clue what he's talking about. Attempting to deflect your lack of experience therefore firsthand knowledge by pointing out yet another with no firsthand knowledge doesn't cut it HERE, boy.

When it comes to allocations for weapons and materiel, money is EXACTLY what is called for.

And my "negative experience," you sanctimonious son of a bitch cost better men than you their lives. Get it NOW?

My point about first hand knowledge was that if men with no military experience set our budget, men with no military experience can criticize it. Lets be honest, our military is run like a business. A little knowledge about low-balling and underbidding is all that is necessary to understand how the military runs. Notice where the contractors set up their factories (everywhere) and you can see why congress works hard to keep the defense budget high. The Budget slips, and factories close causing constituents to lose their jobs. Now...did it take military experience to understand that? Google our defense budget, you can see exactly the money is spent on. So, what doesn't cut it? I haven't served my country, but has RSR ever worked at Air America? He still understands what Chapter 11 means...

You are right, it calls for money. But that money has to be allocated properly. Perhaps the Clinton administration spent too much on experimental crap, rather than fitting the front line with proper gear.

RIP to those men. I pray for peace and hope no more lives will be lost.

 

[manu1959]

My point about first hand knowledge was that if men with no military experience set our budget, men with no military experience can criticize it. Lets be honest, our military is run like a business. A little knowledge about low-balling and underbidding is all that is necessary to understand how the military runs. Notice where the contractors set up their factories (everywhere) and you can see why congress works hard to keep the defense budget high. The Budget slips, and factories close causing constituents to lose their jobs. Now...did it take military experience to understand that? Google our defense budget, you can see exactly the money is spent on. So, what doesn't cut it? I haven't served my country, but has RSR ever worked at Air America? He still understands what Chapter 11 means...

You are right, it calls for money. But that money has to be allocated properly. Perhaps the Clinton administration spent too much on experimental crap, rather than fitting the front line with proper gear.

RIP to those men. I pray for peace and hope no more lives will be lost.

clinton spent money on the military?

as long as man inhabits the earth..... lives will be lost

 

[1549]

In short:

the economy--Increase taxes on the wealthier, provide more tax relief for the poor. When a rich man gets a check, it is likely going to be set aside in a trust fund...or perhaps be spent on a luxury item that does not have much trickle down. The check could help a poor man buy a car/house/tv/couch/computer.

the border--The only practical solution. Try to minimize the influx of immigrants, naturalize those who are already here.

iraq--too late to pull out. Try to minimize ethnic violence, work on training Iraqi units. Seek some way to patrol eastern Iraq to slow the flow of Iranian weapons and insurgents.

israel--recognize palestine as a state.

nk--diplomacy.

iran--diplomacy.

the price of gas--It will be disappointing to see the prices sky rocket after the elections. Seek alternative fuels. I would not tap into Alaska, though drilling off Florida may be worth a look...only as a temporary solution. We should be set on finding alternatives.

abortion--roe v wade.

no child left behind--too much emphasis on standardized tests. Reallocate taxes so that school's in poorer neighborhoods can provide better resources.

taxes--increase. I believe in the estate tax and also believe there should also be a luxury tax.

 

[Gunny]

My point about first hand knowledge was that if men with no military experience set our budget, men with no military experience can criticize it. Lets be honest, our military is run like a business. A little knowledge about low-balling and underbidding is all that is necessary to understand how the military runs. Notice where the contractors set up their factories (everywhere) and you can see why congress works hard to keep the defense budget high. The Budget slips, and factories close causing constituents to lose their jobs. Now...did it take military experience to understand that? Google our defense budget, you can see exactly the money is spent on. So, what doesn't cut it? I haven't served my country, but has RSR ever worked at Air America? He still understands what Chapter 11 means...

You are right, it calls for money. But that money has to be allocated properly. Perhaps the Clinton administration spent too much on experimental crap, rather than fitting the front line with proper gear.

RIP to those men. I pray for peace and hope no more lives will be lost.

Understanding business has nothing to do with Congress approving and the President signing a budget that includes the US military. And when that Congress is controlled by Dems and the President is a Dem, the military gets less.

It doesn't matter what's being charged if the money isn't there to buy.

Clinton didn't spend the money on experimental anything. He sent it elsewhere.

So yeah, I'd say your lack of experience and/or education has left you in the cold on this one.

 

[1549]

Understanding business has nothing to do with Congress approving and the President signing a budget that includes the US military. And when that Congress is controlled by Dems and the President is a Dem, the military gets less.

It doesn't matter what's being charged if the money isn't there to buy.

Clinton didn't spend the money on experimental anything. He sent it elsewhere.

So yeah, I'd say your lack of experience and/or education has left you in the cold on this one.

No...the creation of the defense budget is all about business. I don't need to tell you that our government gets its arms from outside companies. These companies give bids, product demonstrations, host conventions, etc. Much like toy companies would try to get Toys 'R Us to sell their products. It is decided how much is needed to buy these arms, keep up the old arms, pay soldiers, and pensions, and countless other areas need funds as well. This is sent to congress, I stated before why congress supports a strong defense budget, and there you have it. All business.

I would bet my life that Clinton did spend money on experimental technologies for the military. Isn't a common criticism that he focused too much on modernizing the military and didn't try to put men in boots?

 

[insein]

In short:

the economy--Increase taxes on the wealthier, provide more tax relief for the poor. When a rich man gets a check, it is likely going to be set aside in a trust fund...or perhaps be spent on a luxury item that does not have much trickle down. The check could help a poor man buy a car/house/tv/couch/computer.

Why is the government helping poor people get any of those items? Those are luxuries. What then is the incentive for "rich" people to stay "rich" or for others to become "rich?" Why don't they just stop working and they too can get a free house/car/tv/couch under the socialist system you speak of? Also, how will raising taxes keep the economy booming the way it is now? Why wouldnt raising taxes make it stagnate since more people will close their pocket books?

the border--The only practical solution. Try to minimize the influx of immigrants, naturalize those who are already here.

Stop the influx but find those here and set them up to become citizens on the spot or send them packing if they refuse with a "goto directly to jail" if they ever get caught in the country again. Make English the official language of America.

iraq--too late to pull out. Try to minimize ethnic violence, work on training Iraqi units. Seek some way to patrol eastern Iraq to slow the flow of Iranian weapons and insurgents.

Sensible

israel--recognize palestine as a state.

When others recognize Israel as a state.

nk--diplomacy.

Thats specific. Do we just say please don't do that, Mr. Nutjob dictator?

iran--diplomacy.

See above.

the price of gas--It will be disappointing to see the prices sky rocket after the elections. Seek alternative fuels. I would not tap into Alaska, though drilling off Florida may be worth a look...only as a temporary solution. We should be set on finding alternatives.

The price of gas has fallen because of stockpiles of oil due to overproduction of the last year by OPEC, an itnernational organization. They banked on another large Hurricane season to make use of the excess oil but one never occurred. Thus we have discounted oil. OPEC's latest decision to decrease production will have much more to do with increased prices than the elections. Why not Alaska where there is less people and wildlife per square mile then in all the United States but in the Gulf Coast of Florida with a rich diversity of people and animal life, but also open to natural disaster? ITs not very consistent from an environmentalist view. We do need alternatives though if only for competition's sake.

abortion--roe v wade.

Which is a law that was passed by a judge. Never was there legislation by congress on the decision. Personally i think abortion is needed in society to control pop growth. We shouldnt have 3rd trimester abortion though. You should know right away if your having the kid or not. You shouldnt be irresponsible to wait till its almost born to kill it.

no child left behind--too much emphasis on standardized tests. Reallocate taxes so that school's in poorer neighborhoods can provide better resources.

School's in poorer neighborhoods do get taxes allocated to them. IT doesnt help when the kids are still raised as assholes because their parents are assholes. NCLB is ridiculous though since every other week is time taken away to have more standardized tests and less teaching the kids. Government needs to get out of school altogether. They had their shot and they have failed miserably.

taxes--increase. I believe in the estate tax and also believe there should also be a luxury tax.

Why? Why? Why do you want the government to take more money from the earners? What have they done to show you that they are financially responsible at handling any money let alone other people's money? Besides the fact that its been proven time and time again that decreasing taxes increases tax revenues to the government because more people pay in then due to increased job growth.

 

[CSM]

I implied that public sentiment (which is also expressed through voting) dictates a democracy. I also stated that public sentiment is what is expressed in op-ed columns. That is what makes criticism of them so ridiculous.

You did not "imply"; you stated it plainly. Op ed columns express the sentiment of the editor....period. Are you saying that they are above criticism or beneath criticism?

The President has to seek authorization from Congress for war (though I love that you accuse me of posting bullshit). Exactly where did I say you posted BS??? The Bush administration tried to avoid this for Iraq, but ultitmately had to do so. Congress betrayed the people and our system of government when they passed this little number:

‘‘those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons’’

Then be angry at Congress if that is what you believe!

As seen with Iraq, the President can make ties to al-queda and 9/11 appear out of the sky.

Now that is BS!

Actually Esienhower had foresight. He thought the Democrats belief in a military build up was dangerous (see my sig), worried about "the disastrous rise of misplaced power", and did not favor an imbalance of power. The problems started with the "Cold War-riors"...mostly democrats. Over time, the Republicans have become the proponents of international idiocy and excessive military spending.

"International Idiocy and excessive military spending"...no wthat is just humorous. By the way, am I to presume you are an expert on international relations and military acquisition?

In response to your last question: Congress and the president should share such immense powers.

Indeed they do! Obviously, you don't like the result.

Eisenhower had it all right:

An opinion you are entitled to but one that I do not have to agree with.