• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Veterans attempt citizens arrest of Rumsfeld in Boston

Hey, Obama does get some things right.

Yeah, "LesGovt", nothing like expanding government and secret prisons huh? I guess you're more "LesGovt where I don't want government, but certainly for other things I would like MoreGovt".
 
strawman....
Only to a mindless ideologue. Truth stings a teensy bit. Anyone that blames one party over the other and especially as minority party when the dems control the house, senate, and the presidency...thats just pathetic. Bush was an evil genious...democrats are so stupid and inept they need help to get out of their own way even when they hold all the keys. You realize how foolish you make the democrats look?
 
Yeah, "LesGovt", nothing like expanding government and secret prisons huh? I guess you're more "LesGovt where I don't want government, but certainly for other things I would like MoreGovt".

A prison in the U.S. is a prison. A prison at Guantanamo is a prison. That doesn't expand the government.
 
A prison in the U.S. is a prison. A prison at Guantanamo is a prison. That doesn't expand the government.

Black Op prisons with little oversight from the actual US Judiciary are though, as are the wars. Which seem to be supported by a lot of people who cry "less government". Which leads me to believe (one who is ACTUALLY for smaller government) that many of those claiming smaller government don't really mean it. They just have a political agenda to stamp out certain programs they don't like; but would be rather ok with expansion of government in other realms.
 
Black Op prisons with little oversight from the actual US Judiciary are though, as are the wars. Which seem to be supported by a lot of people who cry "less government". Which leads me to believe (one who is ACTUALLY for smaller government) that many of those claiming smaller government don't really mean it. They just have a political agenda to stamp out certain programs they don't like; but would be rather ok with expansion of government in other realms.

Some people probably differ over what should be done after 3,000 innocent civilian Americans are slaughtered in the U.S. I'm not sure that has to do with the desire for more government.
 
Some people probably differ over what should be done after 3,000 innocent civilian Americans are slaughtered in the U.S. I'm not sure that has to do with the desire for more government.

No, many people agreed there was appropriate action to take in Afghanistan. People differ on our tangent off into Iraq, our drone bombing of parts of Pakistan and our expanded interventionist behavior in the ME in general. 3,000 dead and we got over that dead again by fighting the wars. Way to double our losses. Forever war is an expansion of government which affects us all.
 
No, many people agreed there was appropriate action to take in Afghanistan. People differ on our tangent off into Iraq, our drone bombing of parts of Pakistan and our expanded interventionist behavior in the ME in general. 3,000 dead and we got over that dead again by fighting the wars. Way to double our losses. Forever war is an expansion of government which affects us all.

You did say "wars" and not "war." If I wanted more government the way you say we must, then I would assume that you believe we want more attacks on America. After all, that is the justification for what you call "more government." The answer is that we did not want any attacks in the first place and we want to ensure that we are not attacked again. You may disagree about the drone strikes, but they have killed many of the Taliban and al Qaeda, aka, enemies. You may not like why we went into Iraq. To this day, I still believe it was the correct thing to do for our safety. I'm sure you deny that. That's okay. That means we differ over how we view that war. But, that does not mean that I want more government. If you have read my postings, you know that would be a falsehood.

Sorry, I forgot about the doubling of deaths. War is hell!! Whenever war is waged, people die. The military people know that. If you do not want anyone to die in a war, then you would not support the effort in Afghanistan. The idea of war is to kill more of the enemy than you lose and the idea of a war is to win. If you don't win a war, the enemy is likely to come back and do bad things all over again. And, if you leave the battle before it is finished, the dead will have died in vain. My creed is not to have people die in vain.
 
Last edited:
You did say "wars" and not "war."

As we are in wars. We haven't focused on one response, but rather expanded once we got there. You can lump it all together under the Forever War if you want.

If I wanted more government the way you say we must, then I would assume that you believe we want more attacks on America. After all, that is the justification for what you call "more government."

You can assume anything you want. But depending on the assumption, it may not reflect well upon your intellect. Support of the Forever War (happy? I didn't use a plural there) is support of expanded government, expanded debt, expanded spending. What is it you people are supposed to stand for now?

The answer is that we did not want any attacks in the first place and we want to ensure that we are not attacked again. You may disagree about the drone strikes, but they have killed many of the Taliban and al Qaeda, aka, enemies. You may not like why we went into Iraq. To this day, I still believe it was the correct thing to do for our safety. I'm sure you deny that. That's okay. That means we differ over how we view that war. But, that does not mean that I want more government. If you have read my postings, you know that would be a falsehood.

Words are wind. Anyone can say they want smaller government, but when you back big government, big interventionist, big spending, big deficit, big war, big brother government it speaks opposite of your words. Iraq did not threaten OUR safety, not in the least. And what threat do we have? A bunch of people flew some planes into a building.....once. Guess what? Given enough time, we'll have another terrorist attack on our soil proper. They're infrequent, always have been, but they do happen from time to time. I, for one, do not believe that Forever War is the correct approach to dealing with it. In fact, you may put us at greater risk through interventionist means in countries we have no business attacking. Just piss people off, and pissed off people do violent and irrational things....like terrorism. Enjoy the blowback, I won't be on the planes because TSA is well too aggressive. But I suppose some are willing to sacrifice freedom and liberty for a perceived "safety".

Sorry, I forgot about the doubling of deaths. War is hell!! Whenever war is waged, people die. The military people know that. If you do not want anyone to die in a war, then you would not support the effort in Afghanistan.

Wrong! People do die in war and we need to UNDERSTAND that first off. When you say "3000 people died...we have to do something", you're using death as excuse. But that's a flawed argument because the use of our wars have already more than doubled that number. So it can't be the death of Americans, else you would be well more careful in the conflicts that you call for. 3000 of our innocent die, and that's excuse to go into the place. But we'll throw over 3000 lives of our service men away for it. What's the total number up to in all our operations?

Afghanistan WAS a legitimate target, back in 2001 as it was appropriate response to the attack on our sovereignty. But that response ends when other sovereign states have done nothing to threaten our sovereignty. Which would mean no Iraq and no Pakistan and none of the other ****. You issue a Declaration of War against Afghanistan, go in there and force them to surrender to our terms. Then you're done, that was the appropriate response. The response not taken. Instead, Forever War is endorsed. We're broke and people still want to engage in Forever War. How the hell are we going to pay for this? ****, all the money we spend there could be better spent on our own People. Without the loss of additional American life.

The idea of war is to kill more of the enemy than you lose and the idea of a war is to win. If you don't win a war, the enemy is likely to come back and do bad things all over again. And, if you leave the battle before it is finished, the dead will have died in vain. My creed is not to have people die in vain.

The idea of war is to force the other side to give up. The last two statements of yours are incredibly sad. Essentially we ****ed up, but we can't accept the **** up because acknowledging it means those dead have died in vain. So instead we're going to FURTHER SACRIFICE more life for the sake of our pride. Your creed is that of Captain Brannigan. Send wave after wave of your own men after them. Not really the best way to go.

I prefer to think of it not in the terms of throwing men at a problem until it goes away, but rather my duty...OUR duty to our military. They have committed to give up their lives if necessary for our freedom and our liberty and to protect our sovereignty. It is OUR duty, OUR responsibility to only call upon that commitment when OUR sovereignty is directly threatened. Otherwise you do no service to our military personnel other than think of them as mere pawns to be thrown at foreign conflicts which do not defend our freedom and sovereignty. Which I think is a bit sick.

I remember when you conservatives where non-interventionist, non-State building believers. If we could only go back. But instead, we got the big government type throwing wind about being small government but performing no action to prove it.
 
You can certainly arrest a police officer who is assaulting someone without reasonable grounds. There is already evidence of unprovoked attacks happening. Most of the protesters and police officers are peaceful, but the bad apples should be taken down (on either side).

The protesters are un-lawfully assembled. If they don't want to get smacked around, they should disperse when told to.
 
Another video is here and the link here: New Study: Blondes make men more dumb*|*Raw Replayell i support this. But this small band of protestors will get nothing done.
Freedom of speech.
I applaud them

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

These guys are veterans. They should know better.
 
These guys are veterans. They should know better.

These were the veterans were not the sharpest tacks that the military produced apparently.
 
These were the veterans were not the sharpest tacks that the military produced apparently.

Or, a bunch of them are posers.

They took an oath to protect the Constitution of The United States and here they are using it to wipe their asses.
 
And so making 'citizens arrests' left and right is going to ensure the right to assemble peacefully?

They're not being peaceful - thus - they won't earn peace, they'll just earn and more harsh push-back from law and order. . . which I will support.

Protest with your voice and your vote - not with your hands and teeth.

There is a peaceful protest about another national matter going on right now in Pinetop, Arizona. I would be interested to know what your opinion is regarding that protest.
 
That would depend on what kind of revolution... a peaceful revolution or one which Ikari identified which intimated a violent one (ie. "guns").
My figures are what it takes for a violent revolution to have a chance of success. Below 3% revolutions usually fail. Above 5% and they have a good chance of succeeding.
 
Last edited:
As we are in wars. We haven't focused on one response, but rather expanded once we got there. You can lump it all together under the Forever War if you want.

Sounds like we must have fought 50 wars back in the 1940s and here I thought they just called it World War II. As for the Forever War, I've never heard of it.

You can assume anything you want. But depending on the assumption, it may not reflect well upon your intellect.

My intellect? You're too funny. LOL!

Support of the Forever War (happy? I didn't use a plural there) is support of expanded government, expanded debt, expanded spending. What is it you people are supposed to stand for now?

What we used to stand for. Win just wars.

Words are wind. Anyone can say they want smaller government, but when you back big government, big interventionist, big spending, big deficit, big war, big brother government it speaks opposite of your words. Iraq did not threaten OUR safety, not in the least. And what threat do we have? A bunch of people flew some planes into a building.....once. Guess what? Given enough time, we'll have another terrorist attack on our soil proper. They're infrequent, always have been, but they do happen from time to time. I, for one, do not believe that Forever War is the correct approach to dealing with it. In fact, you may put us at greater risk through interventionist means in countries we have no business attacking. Just piss people off, and pissed off people do violent and irrational things....like terrorism. Enjoy the blowback, I won't be on the planes because TSA is well too aggressive. But I suppose some are willing to sacrifice freedom and liberty for a perceived "safety".

You and I have different views about how to deal with terrorism. You want to coddle them. I want to kill them.

Wrong! People do die in war and we need to UNDERSTAND that first off. When you say "3000 people died...we have to do something", you're using death as excuse. But that's a flawed argument because the use of our wars have already more than doubled that number. So it can't be the death of Americans, else you would be well more careful in the conflicts that you call for. 3000 of our innocent die, and that's excuse to go into the place. But we'll throw over 3000 lives of our service men away for it. What's the total number up to in all our operations?

Do we need to go over the entire history of radical Islamic terrorism and the amount of lives lost? Remember Khobar Towers? Remember the Achille Lauro? Remember the embassy in Dar Es Salaam? Remember the embassy in Nairobi? Remember the Marines in the barracks? Remember the Cole? Remember the first attack on the World Trade Center? And I haven't even named that many of the attacks. They attacked us on 9/11 as they thought our reaction would be your reaction, just as it had been for years. This time we sought to put an end to this radical Islamic terrorism. Our goal was and should be to win. Losing means they will be back again. You are apparently fine with that, but I am not.

Afghanistan WAS a legitimate target, back in 2001 as it was appropriate response to the attack on our sovereignty. But that response ends when other sovereign states have done nothing to threaten our sovereignty. Which would mean no Iraq and no Pakistan and none of the other ****. You issue a Declaration of War against Afghanistan, go in there and force them to surrender to our terms. Then you're done, that was the appropriate response. The response not taken. Instead, Forever War is endorsed. We're broke and people still want to engage in Forever War. How the hell are we going to pay for this? ****, all the money we spend there could be better spent on our own People. Without the loss of additional American life.

The enemy fled Afghanistan and went to Pakistan. The military objective has been to kill the enemy. If you drive them from Afghanistan and then come home, they just go back to where they were and start the cycle over once again with the paper tiger.

The idea of war is to force the other side to give up. The last two statements of yours are incredibly sad. Essentially we ****ed up, but we can't accept the **** up because acknowledging it means those dead have died in vain. So instead we're going to FURTHER SACRIFICE more life for the sake of our pride. Your creed is that of Captain Brannigan. Send wave after wave of your own men after them. Not really the best way to go.

What are all those asterisks for? Can't you provide your thoughts without using profanity? When it comes to military leaders, I hope you do not take offense that I will want a Patton or a Petraeus in charge of the troops and not you. And, I will take a Commander-in-Chief of Bush and even Obama and not you.

I prefer to think of it not in the terms of throwing men at a problem until it goes away, but rather my duty...OUR duty to our military. They have committed to give up their lives if necessary for our freedom and our liberty and to protect our sovereignty. It is OUR duty, OUR responsibility to only call upon that commitment when OUR sovereignty is directly threatened. Otherwise you do no service to our military personnel other than think of them as mere pawns to be thrown at foreign conflicts which do not defend our freedom and sovereignty. Which I think is a bit sick.

I already told you that we differ on why we fight. You don't agree.

I remember when you conservatives where non-interventionist, non-State building believers. If we could only go back. But instead, we got the big government type throwing wind about being small government but performing no action to prove it.

I too would like to go back to to where there is not a WTC bombing, planes crashing into the WTC or Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania, or attacking embassies in Africa, or a nightclub in Germany with U.S. military people in it, or barracks, etc., etc., etc. Unfortunately, as long as radical Islamic terrorists want to attack us, we have to beat them back.

I am fine with most troops leaving Iraq as long as Iraq can defend itself. I am also fine with most troops leaving Afghanistan, but not until the generals say that the time is right. As I recall, they have been talking about 2014. We'll see.
 
Last edited:
There is a peaceful protest about another national matter going on right now in Pinetop, Arizona. I would be interested to know what your opinion is regarding that protest.
You know me...I cant resist a good hook...so I bit...I hadnt heard of the peaceful protest at Pinetop per se probably...crap....running out of 'p' words...

Anyway...so...I went to the web to see what i could find. What I DID find was several articles by 'progressive democrats'. Oh...inpsiring it was. But then...I noticed a trend. Every single one of the articles was directed at a REPUBLICAN. WHy...you would think with all those articles the democrats didnt even EXIST, let alone control both bbodies of congress for 4 years, the house senate AND presidency for 2 years, and still control the presidency and senate. Why...its almost as if...those protestors and the arguments as posited on the progressive democrat website were NOTHING but a bunch of shills and whores for the democrat party. Well...thats what it seems like. I COULD be mistaken.

But I dont think so.

****ing worthless ideologues. They are the scourge of the country.

Tag: Arizona - Tucson Progressive
 
You know me...I cant resist a good hook...so I bit...I hadnt heard of the peaceful protest at Pinetop per se probably...crap....running out of 'p' words...

Anyway...so...I went to the web to see what i could find. What I DID find was several articles by 'progressive democrats'. Oh...inpsiring it was. But then...I noticed a trend. Every single one of the articles was directed at a REPUBLICAN. WHy...you would think with all those articles the democrats didnt even EXIST, let alone control both bbodies of congress for 4 years, the house senate AND presidency for 2 years, and still control the presidency and senate. Why...its almost as if...those protestors and the arguments as posited on the progressive democrat website were NOTHING but a bunch of shills and whores for the democrat party. Well...thats what it seems like. I COULD be mistaken.

But I dont think so.

****ing worthless ideologues. They are the scourge of the country.

Tag: Arizona - Tucson Progressive

LOL! Man, I've just been time warped! Somehow my post ended up in the wrong thread and I wasn't responding to Aunt Spiker! Dayum! I have no idea how that happened.

Sorry, dude. Sorry Aunt Spiker.
 
Sounds like we must have fought 50 wars back in the 1940s and here I thought they just called it World War II. As for the Forever War, I've never heard of it.

Ahh yes, refer to the last time we actually declared war. Our last legitimate and just war.

My intellect? You're too funny. LOL!

Indeed, if you just resort to standard political hackery like "you want to coddle terrorists" or something or that nature, then it reflects very poorly upon your intellect. Try to use an actual argument instead of kneejerk emotionalized response.

What we used to stand for. Win just wars.

We won WW II. Didn't the Republicans get us out of Vietnam? Did we win that? Was that "just"?

You and I have different views about how to deal with terrorism. You want to coddle them. I want to kill them.

Surprise surprise, intellectual dishonesty and hyperbole. I never advocated coddling terrorists so don't make stupid arguments please.

Do we need to go over the entire history of radical Islamic terrorism and the amount of lives lost? Remember Khobar Towers? Remember the Achille Lauro? Remember the embassy in Dar Es Salaam? Remember the embassy in Nairobi? Remember the Marines in the barracks? Remember the Cole? Remember the first attack on the World Trade Center? And I haven't even named that many of the attacks. They attacked us on 9/11 as they thought our reaction would be your reaction, just as it had been for years. This time we sought to put an end to this radical Islamic terrorism. Our goal was and should be to win. Losing means they will be back again. You are apparently fine with that, but I am not.

As I said, attacks on our soil proper (the 50 States) is exceedingly rare. On average maybe 12-15 years apart. And mostly they are not as successful as 9/11 was. It's called statistics, learn it.

There will ALWAYS be terrorists, BTW. For as long as there are a group of powerless, pissed off people there will be terrorists. Who are we making sure "won't come back" now?

The enemy fled Afghanistan and went to Pakistan. The military objective has been to kill the enemy. If you drive them from Afghanistan and then come home, they just go back to where they were and start the cycle over once again with the paper tiger.

But you expand war and invade more and more sovereign nations. You prolong the war, put more Americans at risk, cause a great deal of anti-American sentiment which plays directly into the hands of terrorist recruitment. Forever War is not going to get us out of this mess. It's only going to prolong it.

What are all those asterisks for? Can't you provide your thoughts without using profanity? When it comes to military leaders, I hope you do not take offense that I will want a Patton or a Petraeus in charge of the troops and not you. And, I will take a Commander-in-Chief of Bush and even Obama and not you.

It's America, I'll say what the **** I want when the **** I want to say it. When it comes to military leaders, I hope you do not take offense that I will want someone intelligent, experienced, who understands concepts such as blowback, and who can actually plan for success instead of duration and not you.

I already told you that we differ on why we fight. You don't agree.

Yes, yours seemingly is that we fight whenever the hell we want to for as long as we want to, damn the causalities. Mine is that our Military should be used as defense only and that we must properly constrain the government's ability to use it. You know...SMALL GOVERNMENT. But large government supporters probably can't understand it.

I too would like to go back to to where there is not a WTC bombing, planes crashing into the WTC or Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania, or attacking embassies in Africa, or a nightclub in Germany with U.S. military people in it, or barracks, etc., etc., etc. Unfortunately, as long as radical Islamic terrorists want to attack us, we have to beat them back.

So you're at war with an abstract ideal. Nice. What comes after "radical Islamic terrorists"? What's the next fear we'll have to have to support Forever War? Or can we just keep with the "terrorists are out to get us...run for the hills....run for your life! The sky is falling....the sky is FALLING!!!!" forever?

I am fine with most troops leaving Iraq as long as Iraq can defend itself. I am also fine with most troops leaving Afghanistan, but not until the generals say that the time is right. As I recall, they have been talking about 2014. We'll see.

I'm sure you are BigGovt. But the Forever War is already the longest conflict that we've fought and there seems to be no actual end in sight. The entire thing was bungled from the beginning and nation building is not something the government was authorized to perform (nor something it's good at, as this experiment has shown). More money, more war, more causalities...friends like that, who needs enemies, eh?
 
Last edited:
Ahh yes, refer to the last time we actually declared war. Our last legitimate and just war.

Please advise the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution that tells us how Congress must declare war?

Indeed, if you just resort to standard political hackery like "you want to coddle terrorists" or something or that nature, then it reflects very poorly upon your intellect. Try to use an actual argument instead of kneejerk emotionalized response.

LOL!

We won WW II. Didn't the Republicans get us out of Vietnam? Did we win that? Was that "just"?

Yes, we did win the 50 wars of WWII. We should do the same now. We lost in Vietnam. Don't blame me. Blame Johnson and Nixon.

Surprise surprise, intellectual dishonesty and hyperbole. I never advocated coddling terrorists so don't make stupid arguments please.

Sure you do. You have stated that you would leave them in Pakistan so they could fight another day.

As I said, attacks on our soil proper (the 50 States) is exceedingly rare. On average maybe 12-15 years apart. And mostly they are not as successful as 9/11 was. It's called statistics, learn it.

Ah, so we should just forget about all of the other deaths around the world. Pshaw!

There will ALWAYS be terrorists, BTW. For as long as there are a group of powerless, pissed off people there will be terrorists. Who are we making sure "won't come back" now?

I don't think bin Laden will be back nor even Anwar al-Awlaki was killed just today in the Yemeni War. With your plan, he would still be working with killers like the officer at Fort Hood and the Detroit bombing plot. I don't think we should have coddled him... and we did not.

But you expand war and invade more and more sovereign nations. You prolong the war, put more Americans at risk, cause a great deal of anti-American sentiment which plays directly into the hands of terrorist recruitment. Forever War is not going to get us out of this mess. It's only going to prolong it.

It won't prolong it for many of the al Qaeda as they are dead. I think when this is done, some radical Islamists will give pause before attempting to attack us again. Of course, you could become President and they would know they would have nothing to fear.

It's America, I'll say what the **** I want when the **** I want to say it. When it comes to military leaders, I hope you do not take offense that I will want someone intelligent, experienced, who understands concepts such as blowback, and who can actually plan for success instead of duration and not you.

I understand that this is America and that you are free to use profanity if you think that improves your credibility. As for the generals, I picked the best. I don't really think you would be the best. But, that is just an opinion.

Yes, yours seemingly is that we fight whenever the hell we want to for as long as we want to, damn the causalities. Mine is that our Military should be used as defense only and that we must properly constrain the government's ability to use it. You know...SMALL GOVERNMENT. But large government supporters probably can't understand it.

I've already addressed this nonsense. I see no reason to do so yet again.

So you're at war with an abstract ideal. Nice. What comes after "radical Islamic terrorists"? What's the next fear we'll have to have to support Forever War? Or can we just keep with the "terrorists are out to get us...run for the hills....run for your life! They sky is falling....the sky is FALLING!!!!" forever?

Again, I have never heard of a Forever War. Why do you have to make up things? The sky is not falling as we are killing them.

I'm sure you are BigGovt.

Why should I care what you think. Your belief is based on your biases. Whoop-di-doo!

But the Forever War is already the longest conflict that we've fought and there seems to be no actual end in sight.

Really? Maybe you should read what President Obama and the generals have said.

The entire thing was bungled from the beginning and nation building is not something the government was authorized to perform. More money, more war, more causalities...friends like that, who needs enemies, eh?

I told you we would differ over why we fight. Anything else you would like to add? Or, do you want to repeat yourself again?
 
Why? And what should they know?

They should know that they don't have the authority to conduct a citizen's arrest. Even more important, they should damn well know they don't have the authority to violate the rights of an American citizen, without probable cause and a warrant.

These men are a disgrace to everyone that has ever warn the uniform of a United States service member.
 
Back
Top Bottom