blueduke wrote:My main point was Bush blew it by waiting for the UN to give permission (something he never got) to go in. By waiting Bush gave him plenty of time to send those things somewhere else. IMO an attack much like Reagan ordered against Libya (followed by an invasion with alot more troops than we sent) would have been better.
Duke:
Based on that premise, I take it that you're against the reconstruction of Iraq and a Western-style constitution being drafted for that country. Because we still would have been in the same mess we're in now whether we waited for the UN or not, due to the inept planning and leadership of Bush and Rumsfeld.
For being such supposed hawks, Bush and Rumsfeld sure are fighting this war like a couple of pussies, keeping one of the military's hands tied behind its back, just like in Vietnam.
If there's no plan to deal with the insurgency, it doesn't matter whether an invasion took place in 2002 or 2003. Timing has nothing to do with it. If there were WMD's in Iraq in 2002, which I think is dubious, and we eliminated them, then we still would have faced the problem of reconstruction, insurgency and shoving a Western-style constitution down the throats of a centuries-old tribal society that we have now.
I just love how the right wing trots out the WMD argument over and over again. The issue of WMD's is absolutely moot now. The issue now is the challenge of fighting a war despite poor planning by an Administration that isn't willing to fight a total war to win. In Bush's naive world, if the enemy isn't wearing a uniform and fighting from front lines in tanks and jets, it's not a real war. It's just an "insurgency," a Crawford ranch brush fire.
The reality is that the insurgency has killed a lot more American GI's than the actual conflict against the Iraqi Army. And if the current Administration isn't willing to fight an all-out war against the insurgency, then our troops never should have been sent to Iraq.
Then again, "Mission Accomplished," right, Mr. President? I'm sure that banner brings a lot of comfort to those welcoming their loved ones back to the U.S. for the last time at Dover.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
Based on that premise, I take it that you're against the reconstruction of Iraq and a Western-style constitution being drafted for that country. Because we still would have been in the same mess we're in now whether we waited for the UN or not, due to the inept planning and leadership of Bush and Rumsfeld.
I really don't give a squat what kind of gov't Iraqis choose for themselves. However Saddam should have been taken out but that could have been done alot quicker the "Reagan way". We could have also found those wmds and even the corrupt UN and Koffi "Oil for food" Annan couldn't have howled about that. Bush seems to want approval from too many people. And it's mainly people who are never going to like him anyway no matter what he does.
For being such supposed hawks, Bush and Rumsfeld sure are fighting this war like a couple of pussies, keeping one of the military's hands tied behind its back, just like in Vietnam
Freakin' A. What really burns me up is the lengths our sons (and daughters) have had to appease those criminals at Gitmo. They've given them prayer rugs, Korans, and a diet ALOT better than what they're giving our soldiers in the field and look what it's gotten them (the press AND Congress should be ashamed how they're treating this story).
If there's no plan to deal with the insurgency, it doesn't matter whether an invasion took place in 2002 or 2003. Timing has nothing to do with it. If there were WMD's in Iraq in 2002, which I think is dubious, and we eliminated them, then we still would have faced the problem of reconstruction, insurgency and shoving a Western-style constitution down the throats of a centuries-old tribal society that we have now.
As I stated previously I don't give a d@mn what kind of life these people choose for themselves but Saddam and wmds wouldn't be part of the puzzle of a happy life for Iraqis. Laying a beating on the "insurgents" (which I call terrorists) wherever they are be it Iraq, Syria, or wherever so horrific that the very idea of attacking the US again would be unthinkable to them would have been on my list of "things to do" as well.
The reality is that the insurgency has killed a lot more American GI's than the actual conflict against the Iraqi Army. And if the current Administration isn't willing to fight an all-out war against the insurgency, then our troops never should have been sent to Iraq.
Pigs are flying: Duke and I agree on nearly everything regarding this topic!
Duke, the only part of your response with which I disagree is the idea that Iraqis are choosing a Western-style democracy. That's 100 percent false: Iraqis are getting the government that the U.S. wants them to have. There's no choice in the matter. It's Uncle Sam's way or Trailways.
If Iraqis had their choice, they would stick with the tribal society that has existed for thousands of years in that region of the world. They know nothing else.
Otherwise, I agree with you, man.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
If Iraqis had their choice, they would stick with the tribal society that has existed for thousands of years in that region of the world. They know nothing else.
Can't argue with that all. But this is what they would put up with whether they liked it or not:
1. No Saddam and his rape rooms and torture chambers
2. No wmds. Hell they're too dumb to get oil out of the ground without our technology and know how. No way these guys can be trusted with nukes
WARNING: I'm fine with people expressing their opinions on this forum, whether it be on the far left or far right. I have ABSOLUTELY NO TOLERANCE for racism in ANY FORM WHATSOEVER (whether it be against whites, blacks, Asians, Arabs, Samoans, etc.) on these forums.
2. No wmds. Hell they're too dumb to get oil out of the ground without our technology and know how. No way these guys can be trusted with nukes.
There might be someone on these forums that doesn't think this is racist. Unfortunately, I do, and these kinds of statements will NOT be tolerated.
Jared wrote:WARNING: I'm fine with people expressing their opinions on this forum, whether it be on the far left or far right. I have ABSOLUTELY NO TOLERANCE for racism in ANY FORM WHATSOEVER (whether it be against whites, blacks, Asians, Arabs, Samoans, etc.) on these forums.
2. No wmds. Hell they're too dumb to get oil out of the ground without our technology and know how. No way these guys can be trusted with nukes.
There might be someone on these forums that doesn't think this is racist. Unfortunately, I do, and these kinds of statements will NOT be tolerated.
You have my deepest apologies and regrets. It was not directed at a race but at a goverment that has deliberately held down their own to keep power. Knowledge (in a free soceity) frees one from almost any repressive situation. I'll take those 30 lashes now
JackB1 wrote:[>>>neither did I. I want a President the whole world can look up to and respect. WHo was the last President like that? hmmmm.
I agree. Reagan was awsome!!
JackB1 wrote:[>>>unfortunately the folks in charge of these soldiers couldn't give a rat's ass about them or thier families. Are they really "serving this country" or are they just pawns carrying out orders to benefit other people's agendas. I know their intentions are to "serve our country", but it's unfortunate that it doesn't end up that way.
I disagree. They do serve the country. No matter what they are asked to do. They serve.
And Jack please don't try to pretend Clinton didn't suck fat Saudi cock himself. You think he didn't make money with them??
I disagree. They do serve the country. No matter what they are asked to do. They serve.
AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN
JD let me tell you that you guys are heroes of the highest order and your courage and love of country along with your service to it is appreciated more than you'll ever know. There is at least one person who prays for you guys every day when they wake up and every night when they lay down. God bless you
Last edited by blueduke on Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The reality is that the insurgency has killed a lot more American GI's than the actual conflict against the Iraqi Army. And if the current Administration isn't willing to fight an all-out war against the insurgency, then our troops never should have been sent to Iraq.
Bingo!! We did that in Nam and Somalia. It time to let the Commanders on the field wage this war.
Laying a beating on the "insurgents" (which I call terrorists) wherever they are be it Iraq, Syria, or wherever so horrific that the very idea of attacking the US again would be unthinkable to them would have been on my list of "things to do" as well.
I disagree. They do serve the country. No matter what they are asked to do. They serve.
AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN
JD let me tell you that you guys are heroes of the highest order and your courage and love of country along with your service to it is appreciated more than you'll ever know. There is at least one person who prays for you guys every day when they wake up and every night when they lay down. God bless you
JackB1 wrote:[>>>neither did I. I want a President the whole world can look up to and respect. WHo was the last President like that? hmmmm.
I agree. Reagan was awsome!!
JackB1 wrote:[>>>unfortunately the folks in charge of these soldiers couldn't give a rat's ass about them or thier families. Are they really "serving this country" or are they just pawns carrying out orders to benefit other people's agendas. I know their intentions are to "serve our country", but it's unfortunate that it doesn't end up that way.
I disagree. They do serve the country. No matter what they are asked to do. They serve.
And Jack please don't try to pretend Clinton didn't suck fat Saudi cock himself. You think he didn't make money with them??
Jack....I don't know where and when I ever said I liked Clinton? Please find any quote of mine where I was "pro-Clinton"...you won't because I never did. Clinton did cater to the Saudi's but Bush (the entire family) have upped the Saudi-sucking factor by 100 %.
And I agree with you 100% that the soldiers "serve our country" by agreeing to join the armed forces and carry out whatever mission is put in front of them. I regret the way that previous statement came out and apologize for saying it that way. What I meant to say was that they end up serving other people's interests first, which may or may not be the best way to serve our country at that time. Unfortunately, that is the system that has been in place forever and will probably continue forever. If this truly was a "free" country....shouldn't you have the right to disagree with your president if you don't believe in his reasons for going to war?
JackB1 wrote:[>>>neither did I. I want a President the whole world can look up to and respect. WHo was the last President like that? hmmmm.
I agree. Reagan was awsome!!
JackB1 wrote:
And I agree with you 100% that the soldiers "serve our country" by agreeing to join the armed forces and carry out whatever mission is put in front of them. I regret the way that previous statement came out and apologize for saying it that way. What I meant to say was that they end up serving other people's interests first, which may or may not be the best way to serve our country at that time. Unfortunately, that is the system that has been in place forever and will probably continue forever. If this truly was a "free" country....shouldn't you have the right to disagree with your president if you don't believe in his reasons for going to war?
Hell ya bro. Disagree all you want. I just don't agree with all your statements. So it's my right to debate you right? I think were both in the same book,just not on the same page. It's all good. Now sign up for the DSP NFL picks!
Last edited by Jackdog on Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zlax45 wrote:Reagan was awesome hmmm...Didn't Reagan give Huissen most of his weapons of mass destruction?
Yep here we go again. Person in power = the one who did all the dirty deeds. It is like blaming Jimmy Carter for the hostage crisis in Iran yet only to give Reagan complete credit for getting them back home. Alot of dirty politics happend around that time and many people took American citizens as liberties as a means to win or lose an election (from both camps, including a soon to be VP then later on President of our United States - Bush senior).
See and report a UFO and people tag you for every crazy thing that happens under your watch.
Zlax45 wrote:Reagan was awesome hmmm...Didn't Reagan give Huissen most of his weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. And the Marines tought Lee Harvey Oswald how to shoot. Carter also helped fund Bin Laden and his boys while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Hell, China has a picture Slick Willie on some of their money in honor of all the neat $hit he sold them.
JackB1 wrote:what if you are anti abortion but pro separation of church and state....which side are you on?
You are for a law that isn't based on the Constitution, and against another law not based on the Constitution...which side are you on? There are no sides on a circle...
I'm vehemently anti-abortion and vehemently pro-separation of church and state.
I don't believe in murder, and I don't believe in politics in churches or religion in government. Keep the politics in the town hall and religion in the local church, synagogue or mosque.
It's what I call the common sense side.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
pk500 wrote:I'm vehemently anti-abortion and vehemently pro-separation of church and state.
I don't believe in murder, and I don't believe in politics in churches or religion in government. Keep the politics in the town hall and religion in the local church, synagogue or mosque.
It's what I call the common sense side.
Take care,
PK
Hey now I like to think on occasion I use a little common sense as do others that do not share "your paticular beliefs". I happen to be pro-abortion and feel that it is a womans right to choose. I am also for the death penalty. I consider neither of these murder.. As for the seperation of church and state, that is why my forefathers came over here. Though I think on the two should meet on occasion. I see nothing wrong with prayer in school or in athletics, the Pledge of Allegiance, to name a few. Those were things I was raised on and the opinions I was able to form through 33 years of life on this world.
JackB1 wrote:what if you are anti abortion but pro separation of church and state....which side are you on?
You are for a law that isn't based on the Constitution, and against another law not based on the Constitution...which side are you on? There are no sides on a circle...
Separation of church and state is not based on the Constitution? Huh?
JackB1 wrote:what if you are anti abortion but pro separation of church and state....which side are you on?
You are for a law that isn't based on the Constitution, and against another law not based on the Constitution...which side are you on? There are no sides on a circle...
Separation of church and state is not based on the Constitution? Huh?
Nope...it's based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which he is reassuring them that the state will never take their freedom of religion away from them to set up a state religion-you know, the kind of thing they left England to get away from in the first place. It has nothing to do with this overblown baloney that it's become...ie, a government whose people have no right to espouse or practice their faith in the public discourse.
The Constitution says that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (a setting up) of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Congress has never attempted to set up or bolster a particular religion as the only one to have, but it and the courts sure as hell have attempted to prohibit the free, unfettered exercise thereof...all based on something not in any legal document in the United States record.
Don't get me wrong-I don't particularly give a rip about what the government does or doesn't do. I'm not beholden to them to respect some bogus legal claim that says that I'm not to speak of or practice my faith if I happen to work in the government. I'll do what I jolly well please, because outside of the demented, twisted, and distorted viewpoint, they haven't a leg to stand on...
Here's the correspondence from the Danbury Association to Jefferson, and his reply, in it's entirety. This is not a legal document, for one, and secondly, does not, as you can see, represent what so many blindly accept as 'keeping religion absolutely silent' in government; rather, the idea is to keep the government out of the hair of religious folk, thus allowing them to practice their faith without restriction:
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut assembled October 7, 1801 to Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less costly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty - That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and Individuals - That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of Civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But, Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our infant charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favor granted, and not as inalienable rights: And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power and gain under the pretence of government and Religion should reproach their fellow man - should Reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of Religion, Law and good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.
Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a cause of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God Strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain, and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
The Committee
Neh. Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
Reply of Thomas Jefferson to above letter:
Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins & Stephen S. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Zlax45 wrote:Reagan was awesome hmmm...Didn't Reagan give Huissen most of his weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. And the Marines tought Lee Harvey Oswald how to shoot. Carter also helped fund Bin Laden and his boys while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Hell, China has a picture Slick Willie on some of their money in honor of all the neat $hit he sold them.
What's your point?
Just making the point we were feeling the repurcussions of Reagan within 10 years of him helping out the Iraqis in the Iraq-Iran War. You guys speak like Reagan was a saint but I can name off another black mark on Reagan called the Iran-Contra Affair.
Also, If you want to speak abotu truth, Colin Powell showed video tape of a Iraqi fighter jet spraying a white substance to the UN, but the plane was destroyed right after the first gulf war with the UN weapon inspectors. Misleading the UN? Yes...
The term "separation of church and state" was first coined in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. But that doesn't mean that the concept of separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution.
Actually, I notice that you added something in your quotation of the Constitution that isn't there. You write that the Constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (a setting up) of religion..."
There's no parenthetical statement in the Constitution defining "establishment" as "a setting up". Establishment can mean "a setting up" of religion. Or it can mean other stuff as well. This is from a Supreme Court ruling in 1947:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."
(and it's the Supreme Court's job to judge whether laws are constitutional or not, via Marbury v Madison)
As for saying that this is a government "whose people have no right to espouse or practice their faith in the public discourse"....I'm not sure we're living in the same country. Is the government not allowing you to belief whatever you want to believe, and practice what you believe?
