Is war funny????

VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
OK, let me address the increase in the military thing. First, yeah, I wish we could do away with all militarys. That being said, Our military is short handed for the uses intended, There are National Guard troops on 3rd and 4th rotations out of Iraq. There aren't enough brigades to even think about putting them in any other hot spot, Like Darfur, Congo, etc. I wish we weren't the worlds policemen, but if we are, then we need more cannon fodder. The smart military personell are getting out as fast as they can. No more rotations for them. The not so smart ones are paying the price with longer deployments and shorter homestays. That is what Obama was saying. The facts are, if we are to continue being the dominant force in the world, (Something I am opposed to), we need more military personel and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the draft instituted. BTW, Obama needs to look tough on terrorism or the repukes will attack him with the fear tactics. The way I see it, that is all the repukes have, Fear.
Click to expand...
It truly is woefully obvious that the Republican Party employs fear tactics. However, the Dem candidates are using the same as well. When I read statements such as this from their speeches...
Obama said:
We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program... I will not take the military option off the table.
Click to expand...
Hillary said:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Click to expand...
...Does it not sound exactly like what the Bush Administration was stating prior to the invasion of Iraq?

A military, IMO, is necessary and it is provided for by the US Constitution...
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Click to expand...
Even in the Preamble...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
It infers a military....for the common defense and not for projecting power and interests on a global scale.




Unfortunately, we have transformed our military to suit the needs of Empire Building. This is unconstitutional, IMO of course. When we hear a Rep employing this rhetoric, we call them hawks and warmongers. When we hear the same from a Dem we call it pandering. I for one make no distinction. More Dems have gotten the US involved in wars than Reps.



I hear nothing from any of the main 3 frontrunners about anything regarding reducing our troops and withdrawing. The money we could save and shift to other programs to directly benefit US citizens would be staggering...simply by refusing to prop up an Empire that suits the needs of corporate interests.



The Reps, as well as the Dems, will maintain the Status Quo...period.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
VTXDave said:
It truly is woefully obvious that the Republican Party employs fear tactics. However, the Dem candidates are using the same as well. When I read statements such as this from their speeches...




...Does it not sound exactly like what the Bush Administration was stating prior to the invasion of Iraq?

A military, IMO, is necessary and it is provided for by the US Constitution...
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:


Even in the Preamble...It infers a military....for the common defense and not for projecting power and interests on a global scale.




Unfortunately, we have transformed our military to suit the needs of Empire Building. This is unconstitutional, IMO of course. When we hear a Rep employing this rhetoric, we call them hawks and warmongers. When we hear the same from a Dem we call it pandering. I for one make no distinction. More Dems have gotten the US involved in wars than Reps.



I hear nothing from any of the main 3 frontrunners about anything regarding reducing our troops and withdrawing. The money we could save and shift to other programs to directly benefit US citizens would be staggering...simply by refusing to prop up an Empire that suits the needs of corporate interests.



The Reps, as well as the Dems, will maintain the Status Quo...period.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. Here's the only positive thing I can see. The Democrats may try and help the US populous more than the repukes. Health care, funding social programs, (No child left behind bullshit left them all behind without funding). They were sending 5-6 pages of homework home to my grandaughter in Kindergarten untill I raised hell. Kindergarten is supposed to be an introduction to school, not a slave shop. My first grade grandaughter is expected to read for christs sake. Learning to read takes more than a couple a months. the things they expect from my 1st grade grandaughter is about the same as I remember in the 3rd grade. That's just forcing too much down their throats. What's next calculus in third grade. Kids need time to be kids, learn to interact with their peers. Sorry for the rant. Sometimes the schools just piss me off.
 
iblazethatkush

iblazethatkush

Well-Known Member
Snookster said:
Ya know what's funny about War?? Not a fucking thing...been there....done that....Vietnam '71-'72. You pissed me off with this thread title Bro. Sorry 'bout that.
Click to expand...
You should be pissed off. Not at the thread title. But, at the fact that a presidential candidate treats this like a joke.
 
pokey

pokey

Well-Known Member
I do.

Teaching kids to read is a parents job. I agree that the No Child act was retarded, but your kid should know how to read basic stuff going into 1st grade.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
pokey said:
I do.

Teaching kids to read is a parents job. I agree that the No Child act was retarded, but your kid should know how to read basic stuff going into 1st grade.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. this is exactly what is driving kids to drugs, this pressure to excell forced on them by parents and the school systems, What ever happened to letting kids be kids. A childs mind is like a sponge. If you immerse it in knowledge it will soak it up, If you try and force it, it can only hold so much at a time. Shoving reading down a 1st graders throat is not the way. showing them how is. I want to know what they do all day in school if they are sent home with 6 pages of homework. Christ let them have that free time untill they get up around 5th-6th grade. I surely don't remember any home work untill about that time. Seems to me they should be learning how to read in school, not by busy parents that have to work two jobs to make ends meet.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
We TaRdED said:
looks like we will soon go to iran too...

YouTube - FOX ATTACKS: Iran

the only way the usa could get out of this hysteria is if we got RON PAUL in office.. watch vids of him on youtube and spread the word if you believe in him!
Click to expand...
Not true. Both Hillary and Barak want to open dialog with Iran. McCain is the one singing Bomb Bomb Iran. If we start with Iran, it will escalate into Nuclear warfare as the Iranians have a million men under arms. This is the Armagheddon scenario Bush and Ahmadinajad are striving for. McCain is an extension of Bush. I can't believe Bush wants to end the world as he is definently not on the list to go to heaven. He is responsible for 300,000++++deaths. "Thou shall not kill"!
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
Not true. Both Hillary and Barak want to open dialog with Iran. McCain is the one singing Bomb Bomb Iran.
Click to expand...
well, that is straight talk from the new reporters their selves. the people that are in that vid aren't just some joe smoes making stuff up.

the key words there are "want to" have open dialog. obama wants to increase the troop numbers, so time will tell what the future has in store for us..
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Didn't Hillary say that she would annihilate Iran? :roll:


A Hillary Clinton Bake Off?

by Dan Walter

April 27, 2008 04:04 PM EDT

Senator Clinton is talking tough against Iran these days. Her words to be exact, "annihilate Iran". Here's a woman who claims she's against the war in Iraq. So, does she think a war in Iran would make voters happier?
And this isn't a new Hillary. It's just the side her supporters don't like to talk about. Here's what she's said in Feb. 2007
NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.
"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php
So I'm confused. Senator Clinton says she's against the war in Iraq. She tells us we need to be fighting in those treacherous mountains of Afghanistan and she's willing to get our people in a death struggle with Iran. MMmmmmm .... maybe it's just the booze talking and what she really means is we need a "bake off" with Iran? I dunno. What?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top