What a joke

[manu1959]

I'm smart enough to realize your ploy, yes.

Whether I do or not has nothing to do with the fact that I am an American citizen, and am guaranteed the rights given to all of us.

What I'd like to know, is why it matters to you?

it matters not to me what you belive.....tell me my ploy?

 

[Paulie]

it matters not to me what you belive.....tell me my ploy?

How are you going to ask me a question of little relevence to my post, and not explain yourself? If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't have asked.

I'll answer the question as soon as you state your relevance.

 

[manu1959]

How are you going to ask me a question of little relevence to my post, and not explain yourself? If it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't have asked.

I'll answer the question as soon as you state your relevance.

i am not required to explain my self and in the context of the universe i have no relevance....

it seemed a simple question...do you believe in god.....but you seem to be a rather dishonest sort .... so when you say yes you believe in god ..... how do i know you are not lying ....

 

[Paulie]

i am not required to explain my self and in the context of the universe i have no relevance....

Deep, although I only meant the relevance of your asking me that to begin with, not of YOUR relevance in general. Somehow I think you knew that, though.

but you seem to be a rather dishonest sort

That's quite an accusation there, bro. Do you have anything you can show that proves I am dishonest?

so when you say yes you believe in god ..... how do i know you are not lying ....

I haven't said yes. I haven't even answered the question yet.

I believe there is sometihng bigger than us. I don't subscribe to Christianity, or Islam, or any such specific denominational religion. I simply believe that there is something waiting for us after our physical lives are over. I'd sure like to be reunited with my Dad somehow.

Now, can you state the relevance of the question, now that you have my religious beliefs on record for everyone?

 

[Annie]

Deep, although I only meant the relevance of your asking me that to begin with, not of YOUR relevance in general. Somehow I think you knew that, though.



That's quite an accusation there, bro. Do you have anything you can show that proves I am dishonest?



I haven't said yes. I haven't even answered the question yet.

I believe there is sometihng bigger than us. I don't subscribe to Christianity, or Islam, or any such specific denominational religion. I simply believe that there is something waiting for us after our physical lives are over. I'd sure like to be reunited with my Dad somehow.

Now, can you state the relevance of the question, now that you have my religious beliefs on record for everyone?

Ah hah! You are Jewish! Why didn't you say so?

 

[manu1959]

Deep, although I only meant the relevance of your asking me that to begin with, not of YOUR relevance in general. Somehow I think you knew that, though.

That's quite an accusation there, bro. Do you have anything you can show that proves I am dishonest?

I haven't said yes. I haven't even answered the question yet.

I believe there is something bigger than us. I don't subscribe to Christianity, or Islam, or any such specific denominational religion. I simply believe that there is something waiting for us after our physical lives are over. I'd sure like to be reunited with my Dad somehow.

Now, can you state the relevance of the question, now that you have my religious beliefs on record for everyone?

see you are waffling here....either you believe in a god or you don't.....and in post 40 you said yes....what were you saying yes to.....and it is exactly this type of response (the one quoted here) that leads me to believe you are being less than honest.....you don't really say yes and you don't really say no....

as for your dad....i am sorry he has passed .....seriously.....dads are important.....i lost mine once when i was 10 and again when i was 18....sucks really....

so....do you believe in god or not.....

 

[Paulie]

see you are waffling here....either you believe in a god or you don't.....and in post 40 you said yes....what were you saying yes to.....and it is exactly this type of response (the one quoted here) that leads me to believe you are being less than honest.....you don't really say yes and you don't really say no....

as for your dad....i am sorry he has passed .....seriously.....dads are important.....i lost mine once when i was 10 and again when i was 18....sucks really....

so....do you believe in god or not.....

You misunderstood me in post 40:

I'm smart enough to realize your ploy, yes.

The 'yes' was in response to you saying i am a smart guy. I was merely agreeing with that.

I don't believe in 'god' the way mainstream religions do. I don't believe there's some prophet who was sent to earth. Many civilizations have told that same story about an "annoited one" almost exactly the same way.

What I do believe, is that we are not alone. SOMETHING has to be responsible for all this beauty around us. Life in general is almost incomprehensible at times, and that alone makes me believe in SOMETHING. I'll see what happens when I die, but I don't need a book, or a building to go to on Sunday, to teach me how to be a good person. It should just come naturally.

Why is that not good enough for you?

 

[manu1959]

You misunderstood me in post 40:



The 'yes' was in response to you saying i am a smart guy. I was merely agreeing with that.

I don't believe in 'god' the way mainstream religions do. I don't believe there's some prophet who was sent to earth. Many civilizations have told that same story about an "annoited one" almost exactly the same way.

What I do believe, is that we are not alone. SOMETHING has to be responsible for all this beauty around us. Life in general is almost incomprehensible at times, and that alone makes me believe in SOMETHING. I'll see what happens when I die, but I don't need a book, or a building to go to on Sunday, to teach me how to be a good person. It should just come naturally.

Why is that not good enough for you?

that is why i asked .... didn't want to jump to conclusions.... i wanted to make sure i understoodd your posistion ..... thank you ... so you do not believe in a god and i would surmise that you also do not believe in creation ....

you also promised me you would tell me what my ploy is .....

 

[Paulie]

that is why i asked .... didn't want to jump to conclusions.... i wanted to make sure i understoodd your posistion ..... thank you ... so you do not believe in a god and i would surmise that you also do not believe in creation ....

you also promised me you would tell me what my ploy is .....

I think Agnostic would best define me, at this point in my life.

I believe you are trying to be able to classify me as inapplicable, as far as the inalienable rights given to us are concerned. I believe that since I cited the Declaration of Independence, and IT cites "Creator", that if I don't subscribe to a general religion and creationism, that I somehow shouldn't apply...I somehow shouldn't have the right to cite the declaration as one of my motivations.

I can't think of any other possible reason why you would question my religious belief based on my post of the words in the Declaration.

I have answered all your questions adequately. So now would you care to give me YOUR reason for why you asked me that to begin with?

 

[manu1959]

I think Agnostic would best define me, at this point in my life.

I believe you are trying to be able to classify me as inapplicable, as far as the inalienable rights given to us are concerned. I believe that since I cited the Declaration of Independence, and IT cites "Creator", that if I don't subscribe to a general religion and creationism, that I somehow shouldn't apply...I somehow shouldn't have the right to cite the declaration as one of my motivations.

I can't think of any other possible reason why you would question my religious belief based on my post of the words in the Declaration.

I have answered all your questions adequately. So now would you care to give me YOUR reason for why you asked me that to begin with?

you are quite right .... if a creator endows you with the rights you wish to exercise yet you do not believe in the creator who's rights you wish to exercise ..... it would seem more honest to pursue a more genuine avenue .....

but i knew you that you did not believe in a god when i asked you .... and the fact that you would use the laws of those that believes in a creator against them makes you dishonest ....

would you like to play again?

 

[Paulie]

you are quite right .... if a creator endows you with the rights you wish to exercise yet you do not believe in the creator who's rights you wish to exercise ..... it would seem more honest to pursue a more genuine avenue .....

but i knew you that you did not believe in a god when i asked you .... and the fact that you would use the laws of those that believes in a creator against them makes you dishonest ....

would you like to play again?

That's ridiculous. You might as well just say that because I don't believe in your creator, I don't even exist. How dare you alienate me because of that.

I still haven't said that I don't believe in a 'god'. I just don't believe in yours. The declaration doesn't state a specific religion, and the constitution separates church from state, and gives us the right to freely express our religious beliefs. SOMETHING created life. It doesn't have to be a Christian deity, or any other mainstream accepted deity, to be considered EVERYONE'S creator. You, least of all, have no say in WHO the creator is, and who gets to enjoy the rights granted by IT. You merely have the RIGHT to believe in whatever religion you want.

This is exactly what I knew you were trying to do, and you should be ashamed of yourself. This is one of the reasons I have such a problem with specific religions. So many people that subscribe to them think they're ABOVE anyone who doesn't. You're no more special than any other human being, and you're above NO ONE.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Kathianne, that goes BEYOND spin right there. Where did I ever imply I advocated anarchy?

Not obeying orders that are illegal, is not being an anarchist. Anarchy means having no governing body above the people. I don't support that at all. I support a governing body that is OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. You know, like the founding fathers intention of AMERICA for instance?

No illegal orders have been given, the war is NOT illegal in any sense of the word. It was approved of and is paid for by our Congress.

Again for the slow. One does NOT have to desert and flee to another country to avoid fighting in a war they disagree with. They can refuse to obey orders and be processed by the military for that. They can request release or reassignment for religious grounds [ thought they freely signed up, I don't see how that is applicable], they can go awol for 30 days and return and refuse to serve. I am sure there are several other ways as well. The difference being they will have to face the music for refusing to do what they promised to do, for breaking the law. These cowards have no desire to face the punishment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Its standard Chickenhawkery: Call soldiers who don't want to fight in Bush's war cowards. A war that 90% of the people of the world, and most americans find unjust, unneccessary, and a collasal mistake.

Interestingly, very few of these keyboard warriors, have signed up to go fight a war they started, and which no one else seems to think is justified at this point.

Your a LIAR. At this point oly three of us have posted and 2 of us are retired MILITARY members, care to try again asswipe?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The same argument can be made for the people who planned and sold the war.

This is just yet another of a myriad of issues that are dividing this country. It's sad.

Are you serious? The war is completely legal and is authorized supported by and legally binding by our Constitution and our legally elected Government.

 

[Dr Grump]

I totally believe that anybody who thinks any war is illegal and is part of the military has every right to not fight if they do not believe in it. It does not make them cowards, it makes them principled. Are there some cowards amongst them? Could be. All of them? I doubt it. I find it amusing that one of the main planks of neocons and even normal conservatives is that every person is an island and individual rights are paramount. Yet when a person makes such a decision, they now should be part of the collective sheeple. So much for the right to pursue happiness........

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I totally believe that anybody who thinks any war is illegal and is part of the military has every right to not fight if they do not believe in it. It does not make them cowards, it makes them principled. Are there some cowards amongst them? Could be. All of them? I doubt it. I find it amusing that one of the main planks of neocons and even normal conservatives is that every person is an island and individual rights are paramount. Yet when a person makes such a decision, they now should be part of the collective sheeple. So much for the right to pursue happiness........

Responsibility ring a bell? I realize you leftbots think no one is ever responsible for anything, well except Bush and the Republicans of course.

They VOLUNTEERED to serve. They were quite happy to collect a paycheck and all the benefits of military life until they were asked to actually do that which they signed to do, FIGHT a war.

Running away is not principled, it is cowardly. That Lt that refused his orders and stood a courts martial, THAT is principled, fleeing to avoid prosecution is NOT principled.

Leaving for 31 days and then turning oneself in also would be principled, fleeing to Canada is cowardly. Refusing to board an aircraft bound for Iraq, that would be principled, Hiding in Mom's garage is cowardly. Requesting a non combat assignment and if refused then refusing to go to Iraq, that would be principled, Hiding in the hood is cowardly.

Get the idea? I doubt it.

 

[Paulie]

Responsibility ring a bell? I realize you leftbots think no one is ever responsible for anything, well except Bush and the Republicans of course.

They VOLUNTEERED to serve. They were quite happy to collect a paycheck and all the benefits of military life until they were asked to actually do that which they signed to do, FIGHT a war.

Running away is not principled, it is cowardly. That Lt that refused his orders and stood a courts martial, THAT is principled, fleeing to avoid prosecution is NOT principled.

Leaving for 31 days and then turning oneself in also would be principled, fleeing to Canada is cowardly. Refusing to board an aircraft bound for Iraq, that would be principled, Hiding in Mom's garage is cowardly. Requesting a non combat assignment and if refused then refusing to go to Iraq, that would be principled, Hiding in the hood is cowardly.

Get the idea? I doubt it.

You're assuming that every one of them fled to Canada, which isn't the case.

After 30 days AWOL, that's considered desertion. You advocate going underground for 31 days, so as to be classified a deserter, and discharged appropriately. I see a double standard there. You're saying it's ok to escape combat duty by doing ONE thing, but not by doing ANOTHER thing. You're making one case seem more extreme than the other, to fit your opinion of what would be considered cowardly, when the main point is the desertions to begin with.

Every member of the military knows what's at stake by going AWOL and deserting during war-time. I believe the UCMJ actually states 'death' as a possible consequence if it's during war-time. That's what was in the UCMJ when I was in back in early 2000's. Not sure if it's changed. But if it hasn't, and death is still a clause, then what's the difference really? Death via courts martial conviction, or death by road-side bomb. Kind of makes Canada look pretty damn good, when you think about it.

And as for the legality of the war, you know damn right well it's up for debate. Lucky for the rest of the world, YOUR opinion on the matter means diddly squat to the process of sorting it out officially.

The War Powers Clause is the only way that the 'authorization' could have been considered legal, but in that clause, it doesn't allow for this type of operation. Especially being as how we enlisted as many countries as we possibly could to get behind us. This was a MAJOR offensive. The WPC states that authorizations for military force would be used in small, quick ventures. Not full-scale invasions. By not officially making a Declaration of War the way it was done before Vietnam, Congress basically handed full war powers over to the executive branch with little to no responsibility on the part of Congress as a whole.

Not to mention, the authorization doesn't explicitly detail what the actual mission was going to be, besides removing the regime, and promoting a new democratic one. That has been done. It doesn't state policing a civil war between Sunni and Shia as an objective, although the planners KNEW that was an inevitable risk. We fulfilled the mission that Congress authorized us to fulfill. Bush himself has announced that. The people of the US and the world, have every right to disagree with the legality of the war to begin with, as well as the continued occupation.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

The war is completely legal and is authorized supported by and legally binding by our Constitution and our legally elected Government.

The Congress has not declared this war, as written into the Constitution of the United States.

DECLARATION OF WAR

 

[Gunny]

The same argument can be made for the people who planned and sold the war.

This is just yet another of a myriad of issues that are dividing this country. It's sad.

If that argument could be made legitimately, that fruitloop kucinich would be getting support.

 

[Gunny]

Oh did they?

They knew they were going to have to stay for years after the mission was announced to the world as "accomplished", and have to stay and be the policemen for a potential civil war, with their president giving them no timetable on when it would possibly be finished? Because I don't see that anywhere in the vaguely-worded "authorization" that was given to Bush.

Give me a break. They were sold the war as a cakewalk, as were everyone else in the world. They expected to be liberators in a quick removal of the regime, and come home. That's how the war was sold.

Just how many times does the dishonest use of "mission accomplished" have to be shot down? It was not used in the context of an end to US involvement in Iraq, and the repeated attempts to try and push it as that are just bull.

82Marine89's point is that there is no one currently on active duty who has not had the opportunity to get since 2001. Anyone joining after that date did so with the knowledge we were and are at war.

The war was NOT sold as some "quick liberation and come home." That conclusion would be an assumption on your part.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks the war was sold as. You sign on the dotted line and your ass is owned, period, war or no. You go where you're told to go and do what you're told to do and nobody bothers to "sell" you shit.

Don't want to do it? Don't join. Otherwise, you signed the paper ... gave your word ... honor it.