At War

Status
Not open for further replies.
shootinstudent,

It is fruitless to try to debate with you about anything related to Islam. It is not a debate when you consistently dismiss or ignore any and all negative factual information presented by anyone else. Your posts always portray Islam in the same light of perfection that Christian fanatics claim for Christianity and I see no benefit in providing a convenient opportunity for anyone to prosetylize for any religion.
 
By constitutional definition, we are not at war...
Click to expand...

...and this leads us precisley into the political mess we are in. Lefties are resisting everything we do to try to win the war (fight wiretaps, get lawyers for combatants captured in Afganistan, vote against budget for Iraq operations, etc) because we are not "at war". Even those Dems that voted for the "resolution" such as Shrillary can now say that they were "mislead" and did not know that the "resolution" would have been abused.

Just for the record, I'll agree with the Dems on some of this; without a declared war (and the corresponding clear victory or defeat) when do wiretaps end? Ans: They wouldn't.

A declared war is the solution to all of this. If Congress actually declares war, then the President clearly has authority to conduct wiretaps, etc. We would not by sending terrorists to court, but rather POW camps. Those that voted for the war (like Shrillary) would have no one to blame but themselves if they didn't like what happened. Accountability.
 
Flechette

I am not a lefty, in fact, I voted for Georgie boy in 2000. NEVER again will I vote republican.

I agree the solution is to declare war. Until then, the pres is violating the constitution at every turn and SHOULD be IMPEACHED.

Maybe you think its "ok" because its "our guy" in office, but the next guy (or woman... if thats what Hillary is.. ) may not be...

Choose your poison carefully.

Oh yes, buy more ammo, I agree
 
Maybe you think its "ok" because its "our guy" in office, but the next guy (or woman... if thats what Hillary is.. ) may not be...

Choose your poison carefully.
Click to expand...

Nope, it is not "ok". I wasn't defending unconstutional actions of Bush. I didn't want to imply that.

The problem with the two party system is precisely "choosing your poison"; there is no good choice. The unconstitutional actions of this administration is a direct result of the unconstitutional actions of the previous administration. Clinton broke all sorts of laws, the Dems fought tooth and nail to retain him, so the Republicans now feel they can act the same way.

For example, Clinton could go to war in Bosnia without U.N. approval or a declaration of war and the Dems supported him. So why should the Republicans need U.N. approval or a declaration of war to invade Iraq? The Dems do not seem to see the causuality.
 
Fletchette

I am not a lefty, in fact, I voted for Georgie boy in 2000. NEVER again will I vote republican.

I agree the solution is to declare war. Until then, the pres is violating the constitution at every turn and SHOULD be IMPEACHED.

Maybe you think its "ok" because its "our guy" in office, but the next guy (or woman... if thats what Hillary is.. ) may not be...

Choose your poison carefully.

Oh yes, buy more ammo, I agree
 
I agree the solution is to declare war.
Click to expand...
On who? A nation? An Idea? A group scattered here and there? A religious group?

Certain "Jihadists" have declared War on the Great and Small Satan. Few, certainly not all of the Islam faith, have actually acted upon that clarion (to date).

Question: If we have had WAR declared on us, must we "Declare War" back on/at "them"? Can we, should we sit back and await their next move? Are we right or are we wrong to take our war machine (with the ensuing monetary re-build) into "their" midst? Should we restructure our lives/culture/society to meet "their" demands and "submit"? Should we stand by and allow this group of "jihadists" to begin their voiced desire to commit the genocide of a nation-state and/or it's population formed in 1948?

Are there any easy answer(s) to any of these questions? Answers that will satisfy everyone involved?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

(from the link above)...
...what we must do above all is remain true to our principles of freedom and equality of rights and dignity for all. These ideas and related ones are what set us apart from global jihadists. If we discard them in order to fight the jihadists, we risk erasing the distinction between the two camps.
Click to expand...

The real question is, "How do we best go about doing this?" Does anyone here really think that either political party in this nation has a clue?

Other than backing away from being an "Oil Dependant" nation of consumers who need foreign fuel, being the world's policemen, closing our borders and re-constructing our nation to be self sufficient (were we ever?) and self serving, all the while striving to maintain what's left of our morals, liberty and freedoms... as if that's ever gonna happen. :rolleyes: sometimes the only good answer is violence, even if we die trying.
 
On who? A nation? An Idea? A group scattered here and there? A religious group?
Click to expand...

War is a conflict between nations. I entirely disapprove of esoteric "wars" on emphemeral entities.
 
Ok this is just my opinion: We shouldn't have gone into iraq in the first place, bu now that we are in there is no way that we can just pull out; ala Vietnam. If you did your homework, you would know that iraq is broken into three fiercley diffrent ethnic groups. The kurds, ****te, and sunni. The british spliced the country together after World war one. In my opinion iraq is not really a country, so my idea is to split the country into three diffrent countries. The Kurds in the north(the turks won't like that) the sunni in the middle and the ****te in the south. You divide baghdad, and make sure that you Evenly divide the oil between all three countries. The Unites states should partol the border's of all three countries to keep the peace. Just my $0.2
 
Texas,

I won't disagree with your proposed solution, but I have to point out the irony of the U.S. military partolling the borders of three Middle Eastern nations successfully when it is supposedly "too expensive" to secure our own borders...:scrutiny:
 
Fletchette,

Of course first things first and I think It's a disgrace our border's aren't secure. (But that's another topic; and one I can go on and on about :)
 
Texas:

The fix is to turn Iraq into Kurdistan, Sunni-rack, and Shii-rack. Then we can have the Shiites decide to be annexed by Iran, and the Kurds in Turkey (? Geography might be off) can decide to instigate a civil war to try and join Kurdistan, and we can see the same Baathist buttheads in control in a smaller country.

That'd probably be the best long-term solution, but no way anyone in charge wants to go there directly. Let 'em fight over it for 50 years instead...
 
Derek, I think you nailed that one. The only question is why is it so difficult to get to the obvious solution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
White guilt...
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
L
  • Locked
An interesting take on all our current wars
Replies
21
Views
688
CAnnoneer
C
T
  • Locked
George W's War
Replies
8
Views
613
Justin
Justin
H
  • Locked
Marine writes Iraq War column in NY Times
Replies
4
Views
515
gc70
gc70
M
  • Locked
How To Lose A War
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
cbsbyte
C
Back
Top