Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 127

Thread: Syria crisis: France raises use of force(edited)

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    It takes many books to establish a base line understanding of most things. Confining yourself to a single or a second book and parading about with your "absolute truth" provides its own ignorance. Wouldn't you say? In any event, you haven't provided me any information that isn't common sense so perhaps you are misdirecting your reply to the wrong individual.
    yes... i graduated reading only 2 books...
    totally...

    but yeah i seem to be misdirecting.

    awesome book though.

  2. #92
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,011

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You have to believe our economy would not have withstood any challenge. I don't buy that. If we believe this system is superior, why fear the competition?
    Why allow the competition? The point of meeting challenges is to overcome them. However, the longer you wait , the harder the challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And let's be clear, we did not enter WWII until Japan attacked us, and Germany declared war. No matter what fears we ahd about the econmy, we did not invade due to it.
    There were two separete wars going on. We declared war on Japan out of revenge. Call it defense or whatever. In the end, they hit us. We hit back. The fact that Japan didn't attack any American soil in the almost year it took to hit back should tell us that Japan's goal was the Pacific, not the U.S. Hawaii was an inconvenience.

    However, it took Roosevelt years and years to convince Americans that the real war was in Europe against Germany. Americans couldn't understand how this was true since it was Japanese that attacked Pearl Harbor. The fact is that Roosevelt recognized the economic instability that Germany was causing in the face of Europe's inability to fix it. Our war in Europe had everything to do with economy. What else explains that throughout the first half of the 1940 we conducted business with germany even as we bank rolled the war for the Allies? It wasn't until 1944 that we got locally involved and really chose a side (I mean away from the microphone).


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Here's the problem I have, with the interest agrument, absent a core moral value, we can rationalize any evil act, make anything seem necessary, excuse any wrong. It is this very type of thinging that is found in all the governments we have deonounced as evil. It is more than hyporcritical to say they are evil for this, but we're on the side of the angels.
    Exactly true. But we are hardly absent a core moral value just because we have had to play in the gutter the world provides. This is what I keep trying to make clear to people. Our "moral high ground" stems from the fact that we don't conquer and keep and how we behave. We were the first to rebel against a European power and win through a Revolutionary War. We live in a country that fought a civil war a hundred years later to end slavery then marched a hundred years after that for civil rights. We championed female emancipation. Obviously, it was Europeans that ended the Atlantic Slave Trade and began the Women's Rights Movements before Americans mobilized, but it is and always has been Americans that seem to put the explanation mark in the arguments. Everybody, to include Europeans, watch us. Many people aren't aware that the U.S. passed the British as the number one economy in the world before the turn of the 19th century. The Germans, after World War I, trusted only us to manage the surrender. We screwed up and left this to Europeans, but we insisted on the creation of a League of Nations in order to preserve the peace in Europe. We didn't even take a seat at that table. This is what we did as the strongest power on Earth. After World War II, we were the strongest nation in history and what did we do? We didn't start adding stars to our flag. Seek to conguer rivals. Seek to colonize. We created the United Nations and spread power amongst the world's nations. It's our core moral value that has allowed us to do this. The examples of the pat shows nations with power abusing it (another reason Europe doen't understand us). It is a fact that we do in accordance to our self interests just like every other nation out there. But our course of freedom and liberty adds a moral clause to the things we do. Our problem is that we can't isolate and have to meet what the world offers. And most do not offer our theme. Most play a dirty game. Our grace allows us to meet the game with a wider human goal. A democratic, free world is in our best interests. What if dictatorship and communism was in our best interests? The world would look much different today and humanity would be worse for it.

    So it is actually very easy to rationalize an "evil" act if we are choosing between evils. This world demands some maneuvering. Some compromise. We recognized what the Soviet Union was during World War II, but Hitler was our target. We recognized what Saddam Hussein was, but Khomeini in Iran was our target. If we refused to compromise with the world, we would be at a constant state of war from one nation to the next and from one region to the next. Instead we choose the less than desirable government to maintain a sense of stability to keep resources flowing around the world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And 9/11 does not excuse aggression. Plan and simple. We ahve a right to fight those who attacked us, but as no country attacked us, there is no country we can invade on that rationale. Neither country could do squat to us or our interests (unless you're going to say it really was about oil, and even that was a small, small, small threat). 9/11 just became the method of the propganda that led us to war. Few asked any real questions, and those who did were immediately described as being unpatriotic. I think there is particular blueprint for that type of leading a people to war.
    Aggression is often excused, especially when it is in reaction to an offense. Even two atomic bombs on civilian cities was easily forgiven given that we won. You think you could convince Americans that they didn't need revenge after Pearl Harbor? Japan wasn't going to attack our continent yet the world needed to know our reaction. Germany was never going to attack our continent, yet it was identified as more important to a wider picture. Afghanistan was revenge. Iraq was identified as more important to a wider picture. People don't mess with us because we have a way of meeting each slap with a closed repeated fist. After the last ten years, do you think any nation or organization is going to test us any time soon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    You reference the world moving our way without force, and that is true, But no gun is place before them to do so. This is what I mean about haivng faith that our system is able to care for itself without aggressively using the gun. Invading a country and at gun point telling them they will be a democracy is distinctly anti-democratic.
    But we didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq for Democracy. We invaded Afghanistan to rid ourselves of the Al-Queda threat (revenge). And we invaded Iraq to rid oursleves of the UN mission to preserve exactly what Osama Bin Laden used to argue 9/11. Providing opportunity (through democracy) was just to avoid the other easier option...another dictatorship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And while we speak of democracy losely, including in the words a representative democracy like ours, your lack of faith in the system you defend is troublesome. I prefer the kind of patriotism that tries to elevate the people and not play to their lowest common denominator. Too few do that today, and we are paying for our lack of dilgence. As a solider, you could fight that battle. Or you could work to excuse any act the country does. But then again, we all face that choice and not just soldiers.
    Apparently, I have waged conflict in three seperate regions over the course of 20 years so that Washington can look like it does today. You think anybody in Washington represents you at all? My lack of faith in democracy stems from my lack of faith in people. I believe we could take a lesson from the Turks. When the democracy begins to fail, it's time for a re-boot. Our constitution say's something about that doesn't it?

    But the cold hard truth is that none of us take an oath to protect American people or our government. We protect and ideal. To Defend the Constitution of the United States. This makes us core idealists. And Americans hate idealists anymore, don't they?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #93
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Why allow the competition? The point of meeting challenges is to overcome them. However, the longer you wait , the harder the challenge.
    Then why doesn't Walmart invade K-Mart? Unless you're a militaristic imperialist country, competition means that you compete in the market and only on the battlefield if you have to.

    There were two separete wars going on. We declared war on Japan out of revenge. Call it defense or whatever. In the end, they hit us. We hit back. The fact that Japan didn't attack any American soil in the almost year it took to hit back should tell us that Japan's goal was the Pacific, not the U.S. Hawaii was an inconvenience.

    However, it took Roosevelt years and years to convince Americans that the real war was in Europe against Germany. Americans couldn't understand how this was true since it was Japanese that attacked Pearl Harbor. The fact is that Roosevelt recognized the economic instability that Germany was causing in the face of Europe's inability to fix it. Our war in Europe had everything to do with economy. What else explains that throughout the first half of the 1940 we conducted business with germany even as we bank rolled the war for the Allies? It wasn't until 1944 that we got locally involved and really chose a side (I mean away from the microphone).
    Roosevelt actually though Europe was putitng too much pressure on Germany and that was what was leading to our problems. However, do we really want to go over the entire history of WWII here? To my point, it worked this way:

    Just before 8 on the morning of December 7, 1941, hundreds of Japanese fighter planes attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor near Honolulu, Hawaii. The barrage lasted just two hours, but it was devastating: The Japanese managed to destroy nearly 20 American naval vessels, including eight enormous battleships, and almost 200 airplanes. More than 2,000 Americans soldiers and sailors died in the attack, and another 1,000 were wounded. The day after the assault, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan; Congress approved his declaration with just one dissenting vote. Three days later, Japanese allies Germany and Italy also declared war on the United States, and again Congress reciprocated. More than two years into the conflict, America had finally joined World War II.

    Pearl Harbor — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

    Roosevelt, no matter what he thought, did not bring us to way based on anything else other the Attack on Pearl Harbor (I won't get into the mistake you seem to be making in the comparison you hint at here).



    Exactly true. But we are hardly absent a core moral value just because we have had to play in the gutter the world provides. This is what I keep trying to make clear to people. Our "moral high ground" stems from the fact that we don't conquer and keep and how we behave.
    Your point is a false one, like the false choices Bush gave us. Nothing about this gutter requires us to act against a core moral value, if of course we really value anything moral. And while I understand you trying to paint history in a much nobler light than it was, and I really don't want to do history class here, the fact remains, when you get in the mud, you become the pig. It is one thing to get dirty when NECESSARY, and another to wallow in the mud.

    And make no mistake, keeping is a bit of a gray area. We don't have to add a star as you said earlier to keep. Frankly, better for us if the government APPEARS spearate and not answerable. But we've taken some choices off the table, imposed our designs in more subtle ways. If we make them adhere to our interests, then we are keeping to a degree.



    Aggression is often excused, especially when it is in reaction to an offense. Even two atomic bombs on civilian cities was easily forgiven given that we won. You think you could convince Americans that they didn't need revenge after Pearl Harbor? Japan wasn't going to attack our continent yet the world needed to know our reaction. Germany was never going to attack our continent, yet it was identified as more important to a wider picture. Afghanistan was revenge. Iraq was identified as more important to a wider picture. People don't mess with us because we have a way of meeting each slap with a closed repeated fist. After the last ten years, do you think any nation or organization is going to test us any time soon?
    Trouble is to no real degree did either country offend. Not to any level justifying invasion. This is that false comparison you hinted to earlier. The point doesn't hold because Japan did in fact attack us. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq did, hence they fail to meet the same critieria Japan met. Too often this lazy comparison was issued during the lead up to the war. As those how attacked us were not who we slapped, especially in Iraq, we did nothign to make them fear. Hell, we did exactly what they hoped we would do. OBL wanted us in Afghanistan, but we were more capable than he thought. had we stoped there, we'd have escaped more of the cost of this reckless aggression. But, as noted by Schueller, we gave them a second bite at the apple and Iraq help our enemies more than anything we could have done. It was even more foolisha nd reckless than Afghanistan.

    But the point is, your comparison doesn't work.

    But we didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq for Democracy. We invaded Afghanistan to rid ourselves of the Al-Queda threat (revenge). And we invaded Iraq to rid oursleves of the UN mission to preserve exactly what Osama Bin Laden used to argue 9/11. Providing opportunity (through democracy) was just to avoid the other easier option...another dictatorship.
    We did not rid our self of Al Qaeda. Last CIA report I read (sometime ago), they stated Al Qaeda was as strong as ever. In fact, we helped with recruitment. And no, we could have just walked away form the UN mission if ridding ourself was our goal. I think you know better than that.

    However, Bush's rationale to the public was WMDs. Followed by WMD programs. Followed by WMD program related activities, followed by spreading democracy. And may conservatives argued that by spreading democracy, we'd end terrorism, the fact they ahd no actual evidence to support that escape their perview.

    Why did we invade Iraq? Your guess is as good as anyone's. But the best explaination I heard came from the conservative think tank Straffor. While criticizing Bush for telling the worng lie (wmds), they said we needed to invade Iraq to have a base there in oreder to better surround Iran. Can't swear it's true either. But I accept nothing I've heard as a real justification.



    Apparently, I have waged conflict in three seperate regions over the course of 20 years so that Washington can look like it does today. You think anybody in Washington represents you at all? My lack of faith in democracy stems from my lack of faith in people. I believe we could take a lesson from the Turks. When the democracy begins to fail, it's time for a re-boot. Our constitution say's something about that doesn't it?

    But the cold hard truth is that none of us take an oath to protect American people or our government. We protect and ideal. To Defend the Constitution of the United States. This makes us core idealists. And Americans hate idealists anymore, don't they?
    You don't sound like an idealist. But let me ask you, from your point of view, have you fulfilled your oath? What about Iraq, for example, was protecting the American ideal? The constitution?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #94
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,008

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The French proved that.
    So Charles de Gaulle was a negotiator with NAZI's and Pierre Laval wasn't executed for high treason by the French... If you tossed a book 1/1000th of the time you tossed stones you might be able to formulate an argument some times.
    Last edited by poweRob; 04-29-12 at 07:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  5. #95
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    It takes many books to establish a base line understanding of most things. Confining yourself to a single or a second book and parading about with your "absolute truth" provides its own ignorance. Wouldn't you say? In any event, you haven't provided me any information that isn't common sense so perhaps you are misdirecting your reply to the wrong individual.
    Since he only read 2... one had to be the end all beat all holy grail truth.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #96
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    You only read approximately two books in college?
    I think that is high for a Liberal Arts education.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  7. #97
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    France left a bad taste in Americans Mouth in the 60s when they Ordered our Military totally and completely out of the country...There was alot of hostility directed at the US...then they pull out of nam with their tail between their legs and we go in...and we know the result of that.
    Then when things start to improve between us....here comes Jacques Chirac Frances second longest serving President and probably the most anti american.
    He voted against us many times on the security council and used alot of anti american rhetoric..
    I think these issues had alot to do with the bad perceptions of France with Americans...I think sarkozy has changed some of that attitude...
    Are they the cowards they are purported to be...nah..I think they have very poor military tacticians...and Brass....I mean seriously the Maginot line ?
    Last edited by lpast; 04-30-12 at 08:37 AM.

  8. #98
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Since he only read 2... one had to be the end all beat all holy grail truth.
    May be not. But we have a lot of folks who have read none, and still know all there is know. Just ask them; they'll tell you.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #99
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    France left a bad taste in Americans Mouth in the 60s when they Ordered our Military totally and completely out of the country...There was alot of hostility directed at the US...then they pull out of nam with their tail between their legs and we go in...and we know the result of that.
    Then when things start to improve between us....here comes Jacques Chirac Frances second longest serving President and probably the most anti american.
    He voted against us many times on the security council and used alot of anti american rhetoric..
    I think these issues had alot to do with the bad perceptions of France with Americans...I think sarkozy has changed some of that attitude...
    Are they the cowards they are purported to be...nah..I think they have very poor military tacticians...and Brass....I mean seriously the Maginot line ?
    Whenever I hear the words "Maginot Line" I always picture the French never considering once, the concept of "going around".
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #100
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,011

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    We did not rid our self of Al Qaeda. Last CIA report I read (sometime ago), they stated Al Qaeda was as strong as ever. In fact, we helped with recruitment. And no, we could have just walked away form the UN mission if ridding ourself was our goal. I think you know better than that.
    Al-Queda is absolutely fractured and beyond crippled. Has been for years. Never believe an Intel report that plays it safe. If the CIA reported how wrecked the Al-Queda network is and the next day an attack occurs somewhere in the world with individuals claiming Al-Queda influence, then people would get fired and the CIA got ridiculed in the media. These type reports released to the public are always inaccurate and will always play it safe. It's always better to predict failure and to be wrong then predict success and be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    However, Bush's rationale to the public was WMDs. Followed by WMD programs. Followed by WMD program related activities, followed by spreading democracy. And may conservatives argued that by spreading democracy, we'd end terrorism, the fact they ahd no actual evidence to support that escape their perview.

    Why did we invade Iraq? Your guess is as good as anyone's. But the best explaination I heard came from the conservative think tank Straffor. While criticizing Bush for telling the worng lie (wmds), they said we needed to invade Iraq to have a base there in oreder to better surround Iran. Can't swear it's true either. But I accept nothing I've heard as a real justification.
    Bush's rational was for the public because like so many other things, the public needs a simple answer to deal with a complex issue. Spreading Democracy creates an environment where issues like "terrorism" are more manageable. Nobody ever stated that all terrorism will end when people vote. This was always a false argument used by the Left because they didn't have the creativity to actually make arguments about the whole affair. And today we see Conservatives doing the same thing against Obama.

    Think tanks think. This doesn't mean they were privy to a secret plan never released. Ahmendejed's public call for support for a nuclear program happened only after we took down Hussein. Besides that, we dontt need a base in Iraq for Iran anymore than we needed a base in Saudi Arabia prior to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. We amassed and assualted just fine without one in 1991. The evidence should be clear why we invaded Iraq. It was clear under Clinton as well. Since Bush carried on the views of the Clinton Administration, we can certainly look beyond the excuse of "WMD" or "revenge for his daddy" or the many other things that allow people to pretend they are clueless in their hate. Not accepting the real reasons for Iraq is one thing, but pretending that there is no reasoning is negligent and insulting. We have the most sophisticated spy and intel network in history. We command not only the skies, but space. Do people honestly believe that "we didn't know?" C'mon. The simple truth is that we needed to be rid of Saddam Hussein. Right after the Gulf War ended prematurely, Saddam Hussein created a humanitarian fiasco in the north. Our troops were sent in for years to deal with it while Western civilizations celebrated the "victory" of the Gulf War and threw parades. In the mean time, the UN sanctions were starving out the entire Shia and Kurd population (Hussein protected the Sunni as best he could.) Furthermore, everytime he played his game with UN inspectors and rush his military towards the border of Kuwait, we would counter by placing more and more troops in Saudi Arabia. This was an escallation that wasn't going to end. In the mean time, we had Al-Queda blowing up our embassies and attacking our troops with the excuse of our presence in Saudi Arabia, which was escallating. After 9/11, his released statements to the American people declared that the "starving children of Iraq" demanded justice. As late as 2002, Hussein was flying his jets into Jordanian airspace to taunt conflict. So after over a decade of pouring money into Hussein's humanitarian disasters, troop build ups in Saudi Arabia, constant taunting, and starving out the Iraqi population, we rid ourselves of it. Simply leaving the UN mission would have given Saddam Hussein license to do whatever he wanted and provide belligerants around the world with a hero and cause more trouble elsewhere. Everybody else had already washed their hands clean of the mission leaving America to take all the blame by 2003. "WMD" or a "link to Al-Queda" are excuses for the public who need a Pearl harbor or a 9/11 to take out an obvious enemy.


    You keep bringing up ideas like "last resort" and "if necessary" and "if needed." Well, who decides this? Who decides that Germany was more important than Japan? Who decides that Korea is worth saving? Or Vietnam? Or Kuwait? Who decides that Afghanistan being a contributor to the world instead of a host for rogue agents is in our best interest? Eventually, people are going to choose their moments. Our people don't vote to go to war. They simply cast a vote every two years and walk away. Politicians know this. I think we as a society struggle with this idea of a "last resort" because we actually believe that our wars are seperated by bouts of peace. We have been in a constant struggle since our Revolutionary War. We took what the French gave birth to (badly) and defied the historical trend. We've been struggling against the historical grain ever since. Finally, after the Berlin Wall fell, we were the last "empire" standing. But we have to keep standing, don't we? We've learned a lot in our history. We've learned that Isolationalism will not preseve us aganist the grain. We've learned even though we have had to get dirty, we can maintain our core sense of values against the grain. And we have learned that our core sense of values is infectious around the globe and this is in our best interests. Did you know that despite Iraq and Afganistan on our television sets, the world has been going through the lowest period of conflict since the Soviet Union retired into history? There's a reason for that.

    And stop looking for justification, which will always be at odds with other people's justifications. Even Osama Bin Laden and Hitler had justifications. It's got nothing to do with it. Accept reasoning. There is a future. And a Middle East full of nuclear armed Saddam Husseins and Ahmenedejads is a future that needs to be avoided.




    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You don't sound like an idealist. But let me ask you, from your point of view, have you fulfilled your oath? What about Iraq, for example, was protecting the American ideal? The constitution?
    I don't know what I am. Maybe I have a way of seeing things that marries idealism with practicalism. I don't believe in a Democratic world because it is the right thing to do. I believe in it because it lends support to our way of life and it is in our best interest. It is a fact that the most backwards locations on earth share commonalities; enslaved women, religious oppression, lack of education, government corruption, etc. And it is in these locations where terrorist threats come from. So I do see a practical reason for being the "shining beacon on the hill."

    This oath is convoluted. It made perfect sense when the Constitution was all we had. But today, we deal with lawyers and judges who have so perverted our laws its hard to tell what is and is not Constitutional. Aside from the core declarations, the rest is political playground. But what about World War II was Constitutional? What about the Barbary Pirates Wars (America's first adventure to protect economy) was Constitutional?

    As far as fulfilling it...sure. As best anyone can anyway. "All men are created equal?" Apparently even Revolutionary and Civil War "soldiers" were confused about this part. Like I stated, it's the ideal that is protected. The last time our "soldiers" fought for our freedom (the simple idea of it) was in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, or the Civil War. No one since have ever treatened our liberty and freedom. However there is also such a thing as Economic Freedom. Our nation can't be crippled because Barbary Pirates are blocking the Med, or Germany is strangling trades, or oil is threatened. We are a nation that believes in prosperity and opportunity. When some belligerant in the world threatens this by cutting of trade routes, couping against business partners, dictating our activity while protecting regions, we have an enemy.

    We have fought no war abroad that didn't have to do with stabilizing a region. Barbary Pirates were about not just the Med, but Northern and Eastern Africa. Japan was about the entire Pacific to include Asia. Germany was about all of Europe. Korea and Vietnam were about a wider Asia against Soviet advances. During the Cold War we courted Iran in order to have "our guy" as a referee for the Middle East and South Africa. With this going bad, we looked to Iraq until he threatened the region by invading Kuwait. Afghanistan is about Pakistan/Iran/India. And Iraq was never about just Iraq. We have always been about the stabilizing of regions, because that is how trade and economy is preserved.

    I followed orders and gave them for a government that is supposed to "Support and Defend" the Constitution for 20 years (retire June 30). If that government fails, burden falls upon the people. Outside of a coup upon Washington, only the ignorant stooge in the voting booth can demand what he deserves. What does today's Washington leaders tell us about what the American people deserve anymore? Our politicians lie to cover up real reasons for action. Our Congress is humiliating and an embarrassment on display to the world.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-01-12 at 03:03 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •