[vector]

spotless reputation of Mitt Romney:hilarious:

[TheRealThing]

Conservatives brought us RvsW, and they intend to keep it. It's a running point for them. If Roe goes away, republicans lose a bullet.

Absurd post.

[TheRealThing]

spotless reputation of Mitt Romney:hilarious:

What's wrong vector, you getting too lazy to fake your lack of education? One minute you can't even type and the next you have mastered the concept of sarcasm and spelling. The worst thing he ever did was put his dog in a box on top of his car. Kind of pales in comparison to a sitting president asking the Russian premier for a time extention in order to betray his own people.

[TheRealVille]

Absurd post.

The Justices that ruled on RvW, and kept it alive were appointed by republicans. 7 of the 9 sitting justices at the time were appointed by republicans. The majoriy of the justices that ruled in favor of RvW were conservatives. 4 or 5, if my memory serves, that ruled in favor, were conservatives. Look it up. It's fact. I'll post the justices, and let you figure the numbers, and who appointed them.

Majority Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence Burger
Concurrence Douglas
Concurrence Stewart
Dissent White
Dissent Rehnquist

[TheRealThing]

The Justices that ruled on RvW, and kept it alive were appointed by republicans. 7 of the 9 sitting justices at the time were appointed by republicans. The majoriy of the justices that ruled in favor of RvW were conservatives. 4 or 5, if my memory serves, that ruled in favor, were conservatives. Look it up. It's fact. I'll post the justices, and let you figure the numbers, and who appointed them.

Majority Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence Burger
Concurrence Douglas
Concurrence Stewart
Dissent White
Dissent Rehnquist

Republcans couldn't have known what the justices would do in that case. But none the less true 5 of the 7 majority were appointed by republicans. So, now I see the deceit of your statement.

[TheRealVille]

Republcans couldn't have known what the justices would do in that case. But none the less true 5 of the 7 majority were appointed by republicans. So, now I see the deceit of your statement.

Did I, or did I not say 4 or 5 of the majority were appointed by republicans, and 7 of the 9 sitting were appointed by republicans?

[TheRealVille]

I'm not doing the math for you, it's there is black and white. Conservatives ruled the court during RvW. And most were appointed by republicans.

[TheRealThing]

Did I, or did I not say 4 or 5 of the majority were appointed by republicans, and 7 of the 9 sitting were appointed by republicans?

Not that deceitful post, this one--- "they intend to keep it. It's a running point for them. If Roe goes away, republicans lose a bullet."

You would reduce all human dignity down to a political strategy to either regain or maintain power. There are many people who actually oppose infanticide on moral grounds. For those folks the practice is reprehensible and they are appalled to see the debate over human life has become nothing more significant than a political football. My own view is that at some point God will have had enough, and remove his hand of blessing and protection from our nation.

[TheRealVille]

Not that deceitful post, this one--- "they intend to keep it. It's a running point for them. If Roe goes away, republicans lose a bullet."

You would reduce all human dignity down to a political strategy to either regain or maintain power. There are many people who actually oppose infanticide on moral grounds. For those folks the practice is reprehensible and they are appalled to see the debate over human life has become nothing more significant than a political football. My own view is that at some point God will have had enough, and remove his hand of blessing and protection from our nation.

Republican politicians have no intention of overturning RvW, there is no deceit in that statement.

[TheRealThing]

Republican politicians have no intention of overturning RvW, there is no deceit in that statement.

I disagree. If the republicans could overturn Roe, they would get an enormous boost out of the deal. Not to mention how big it will be if Romney gets in and overturns the health care fiasco. Therefore, I say republicans will do it if they can. Health care will be down the drain almost immediately, the SCOTUS will uphold whatever the new vote turns out to be. And Roe might very well fall sometime during what will surely be another 8 years with a republican in the white house.

[TheRealVille]

I disagree. If the republicans could overturn Roe, they would get an enormous boost out of the deal. Not to mention how big it will be if Romney gets in and overturns the health care fiasco. Therefore, I say republicans will do it if they can. Health care will be down the drain almost immediately, the SCOTUS will uphold whatever the new vote turns out to be. And Roe might very well fall sometime during what will surely be another 8 years with a republican in the white house.

They will in no way back up on what they have already approved. Lawyers don't usually back up on what they do.

[TheRealThing]

They will in no way back up on what they have already approved. Lawyers don't usually back up on what they do.

Not so. If the legislative branch of the federal goverment repeals ObamaCare the SCOTUS will side with the congress. AGAIN

[RunItUpTheGut]

Major issues such as healthcare should be voted on by the people.

[Beetle01]

We spend 1.4 trillion a year on military activities. Waging pointless war after pointless war. Yet providing proper healthcare for the children of our country is what gets people all up in arms? Talk about messed up priorities.

Yes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a big waste of time and lives. No this does not mean I don't support the troops as Im sure the Neo Cons on the site will try to paint me as a soldier hating hippy. I support our troops as much as anyone, which is why I don't believe they should be over there putting their lives on the line for Oil fields, Poppy fields, and minerals.

I know plenty of soldiers who oppose/opposed both wars, they still went because they had no choice. We have no need for such a large standing army. No country or group of countries could ever threaten us if we just had a small (by comparison) 250-500k active/reserve force. The 2 most powerful countries besides the US is Russia and China, neither country has the capability to maintain a force beyond their borders for more than a couple of months, I don't care how many times you watch Red Dawn, that is a fact.

Pre WW2, America always had a small standing force, and we did not get into countless wars all around the globe. When necessary, men and women would volunteer in defense of their nation. This gave us the advantage over all other enemies. Since the start of this nation, our generals and those around the world marveled at the ability of Americans to rise up and fight against "regular" forces. There's a really good book called America's Victories. It talks about how and why America won its wars. I recommend it to you all.

Getting OT, but I'll continue anyways.

Since the beginning of this nation our great leaders, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and many others fought and warned us about 2 things that could and would lead to the fall of this nation. Those 2 things were Banks gaining control of our money and economic system, and the rise of the Military Industrial Complex.

This last speech by Eisenhower talks about the threat of the MIC.


Of course the MIC rose up anyways, and now we have war after war for nothing but money.

Here is a good quote from Thomas Jefferson.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Of course now we have the Fed Reserve, a group of world bankers who control the printing of our money, inflation, and interest rates.

We have failed ourselves.

[vector]

Major issues such as healthcare should be voted on by the people.

the people did vote on this they elected the president and congress

[vector]

We spend 1.4 trillion a year on military activities. Waging pointless war after pointless war. Yet providing proper healthcare for the children of our country is what gets people all up in arms? Talk about messed up priorities.

Yes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a big waste of time and lives. No this does not mean I don't support the troops as Im sure the Neo Cons on the site will try to paint me as a soldier hating hippy. I support our troops as much as anyone, which is why I don't believe they should be over there putting their lives on the line for Oil fields, Poppy fields, and minerals.

I know plenty of soldiers who oppose/opposed both wars, they still went because they had no choice. We have no need for such a large standing army. No country or group of countries could ever threaten us if we just had a small (by comparison) 250-500k active/reserve force. The 2 most powerful countries besides the US is Russia and China, neither country has the capability to maintain a force beyond their borders for more than a couple of months, I don't care how many times you watch Red Dawn, that is a fact.

Pre WW2, America always had a small standing force, and we did not get into countless wars all around the globe. When necessary, men and women would volunteer in defense of their nation. This gave us the advantage over all other enemies. Since the start of this nation, our generals and those around the world marveled at the ability of Americans to rise up and fight against "regular" forces. There's a really good book called America's Victories. It talks about how and why America won its wars. I recommend it to you all.

Getting OT, but I'll continue anyways.

Since the beginning of this nation our great leaders, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and many others fought and warned us about 2 things that could and would lead to the fall of this nation. Those 2 things were Banks gaining control of our money and economic system, and the rise of the Military Industrial Complex.

This last speech by Eisenhower talks about the threat of the MIC.


Of course the MIC rose up anyways, and now we have war after war for nothing but money.

Here is a good quote from Thomas Jefferson.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Of course now we have the Fed Reserve, a group of world bankers who control the printing of our money, inflation, and interest rates.

We have failed ourselves.

the reason we get in these wars is the republican president
repays his rich friends

[Bob Seger]

We spend 1.4 trillion a year on military activities. Waging pointless war after pointless war. Yet providing proper healthcare for the children of our country is what gets people all up in arms? Talk about messed up priorities.

Yes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a big waste of time and lives. No this does not mean I don't support the troops as Im sure the Neo Cons on the site will try to paint me as a soldier hating hippy. I support our troops as much as anyone, which is why I don't believe they should be over there putting their lives on the line for Oil fields, Poppy fields, and minerals.

I know plenty of soldiers who oppose/opposed both wars, they still went because they had no choice. We have no need for such a large standing army. No country or group of countries could ever threaten us if we just had a small (by comparison) 250-500k active/reserve force. The 2 most powerful countries besides the US is Russia and China, neither country has the capability to maintain a force beyond their borders for more than a couple of months, I don't care how many times you watch Red Dawn, that is a fact.

Pre WW2, America always had a small standing force, and we did not get into countless wars all around the globe. When necessary, men and women would volunteer in defense of their nation. This gave us the advantage over all other enemies. Since the start of this nation, our generals and those around the world marveled at the ability of Americans to rise up and fight against "regular" forces. There's a really good book called America's Victories. It talks about how and why America won its wars. I recommend it to you all.

Getting OT, but I'll continue anyways.

Since the beginning of this nation our great leaders, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and many others fought and warned us about 2 things that could and would lead to the fall of this nation. Those 2 things were Banks gaining control of our money and economic system, and the rise of the Military Industrial Complex.

This last speech by Eisenhower talks about the threat of the MIC.


Of course the MIC rose up anyways, and now we have war after war for nothing but money.

Here is a good quote from Thomas Jefferson.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Of course now we have the Fed Reserve, a group of world bankers who control the printing of our money, inflation, and interest rates.

We have failed ourselves.

Been reading TV Guide again I see.:eyeroll:

Yeah, and that cost us almost the entire Pacific fleet, and over 2 thousand lives at Pearl Harbor, plus the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers throughout the war, by the U.S. being unprepared for what lurked out there.

You're an idiot Beetle, and you solidify that more and more with every post you make.

Honestly, I have more confidence in people locked up in rubber rooms than I do with you.

[TheRealVille]

I disagree. If the republicans could overturn Roe, they would get an enormous boost out of the deal. Not to mention how big it will be if Romney gets in and overturns the health care fiasco. Therefore, I say republicans will do it if they can. Health care will be down the drain almost immediately, the SCOTUS will uphold whatever the new vote turns out to be. And Roe might very well fall sometime during what will surely be another 8 years with a republican in the white house.

Count back to 1973 and tell me how many republicans in the white house have done away with RvW.

[Beetle01]

Been reading TV Guide again I see.:eyeroll:

Yeah, and that cost us almost the entire Pacific fleet, and over 2 thousand lives at Pearl Harbor, plus the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers throughout the war, by the U.S. being unprepared for what lurked out there.

You're an idiot Beetle, and you solidify that more and more with every post you make.

Honestly, I have more confidence in people locked up in rubber rooms than I do with you.

Ahhh can't deal with facts so you toss out some BS argument and insults.

The size of our force had nothing to do with it. Intel sources told our leadership Japan was planning to attack. We took no action.

US intelligence had cracked the radio code Japan used to communicate with its embassies.

These intel reports which were supplied daily told our leadership that Japanese spies were giving exact locations of our warships to Japan.

Quite a few people warned of possible pending attack on Pearl Harbor.
J. Edgar Hoover - FBI Director
Joseph Grew, ambassador to Japan
Senator Guy Gillette
Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe
Colonel F.G.L. Weijerman

Capt Johan Ranneft - a Dutch Naval officer (attached to D.C.) stated that he was informed by naval intel that Japanese carriers were 400 miles NW of Hawaii on Dec 6th.

Admiral Richardson was stripped of his command of Pearl Harbor before the attack for warning of the Fleet's vulnerability.

We now even know that the DOD once had a plan to stage a false flag attack on an airliner to motivate the populace for war with Cuba. Luckily that never happened.

The point being, the size of our force had nothing to do with why the Pearl Harbor attack happened. Nor is it even applicable in today's world. If a massive fleet was steaming towards the US, we would know the second they left port.

[Bob Seger]

Ahhh can't deal with facts so you toss out some BS argument and insults.

The size of our force had nothing to do with it. Intel sources told our leadership Japan was planning to attack. We took no action.

US intelligence had cracked the radio code Japan used to communicate with its embassies.

These intel reports which were supplied daily told our leadership that Japanese spies were giving exact locations of our warships to Japan.

Quite a few people warned of possible pending attack on Pearl Harbor.
J. Edgar Hoover - FBI Director
Joseph Grew, ambassador to Japan
Senator Guy Gillette
Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe
Colonel F.G.L. Weijerman

Capt Johan Ranneft - a Dutch Naval officer (attached to D.C.) stated that he was informed by naval intel that Japanese carriers were 400 miles NW of Hawaii on Dec 6th.

Admiral Richardson was stripped of his command of Pearl Harbor before the attack for warning of the Fleet's vulnerability.

We now even know that the DOD once had a plan to stage a false flag attack on an airliner to motivate the populace for war with Cuba. Luckily that never happened.

The point being, the size of our force had nothing to do with why the Pearl Harbor attack happened. Nor is it even applicable in today's world. If a massive fleet was steaming towards the US, we would know the second they left port.

I know exactly what the facts are Mr. (thinks he) Know(s) Everything about Everything.......NOT

FDR and his gang's attitude was no different that what your spouting off about right now. IMO they are just as much to blame for WWII escalating to the point it did as those who committed the autrocities and initiated the aggressions. They have just as much blood on their hands as anybody. Their apathy cost this world millions of innocent lives as well as millions of soldiers lives. They let our nation's defenses weaken to the point that we were vulnerable. Plain and simple. Their mentality was no different than what yours is today. Look the other way and hope it all just goes away. You had Beetle type attitudes rallying in Pittsburg just days before we were bombed spouting the exact same passive type propaganda that you are.


We have rouge nations all over the world that are nuclear capable, near nuclear capable, or seeking ways to become nuclear capable. All you need is one crazy mad man like what sits in Teheran, like what was in Baghdad or Libya, or some terrorist group to acquire such weapons and hold the rest of the free world hostage. You have to stop some of this stuff in it's tracts before it ever has a chance to bloom. Unfortunately we have no choice but to police the rouges of the world to ensure we are able to continue to live free in this country. It's nut jobs like yourself that cant see the forest for the trees.


Are you sure that you are really not a foreign exchange student from France?

[Panther Thunder]

We spend 1.4 trillion a year on military activities. Waging pointless war after pointless war. Yet providing proper healthcare for the children of our country is what gets people all up in arms? Talk about messed up priorities.

Healthcare is pretty pointless if we are all dead, IMO.

[TheRealThing]

(1) Pre WW2, America always had a small standing force, and we did not get into countless wars all around the globe. When necessary, men and women would volunteer in defense of their nation. This gave us the advantage over all other enemies. Since the start of this nation, our generals and those around the world marveled at the ability of Americans to rise up and fight against "regular" forces. There's a really good book called America's Victories. It talks about how and why America won its wars. I recommend it to you all.

(2)Since the beginning of this nation our great leaders, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and many others fought and warned us about 2 things that could and would lead to the fall of this nation. Those 2 things were Banks gaining control of our money and economic system, and the rise of the Military Industrial Complex.

This last speech by Eisenhower talks about the threat of the MIC.


Of course the MIC rose up anyways, and now we have war after war for nothing but money.

(1) People like you are so shallow and uniformed it's shocking. In the days just before WWII, and during the war. It would have taken a week to steam from Pearl Harbor to say the Solomon Islands. Things were much slower then. In our day, aircraft with enough ordinance to blow the Solomons off the planet can be there in less than a day. Warfare in this day and time is infititely faster as is the threat deadly. The unprepared in this day, won't have time to gear up industry to manufacture war machines, including aircraft and naval vessels ala WWII. If we find ourselves unprepared for a China say, once the sword is placed to our neck all we could do is bow.

IMO, we have leaned way too heavily on the concept of MAD. If we will face a significant threat, and we will, hard and fast choices will have to be made. All this surgical and humane warfare of late, where we try to spare those we consider to be innocent of making war against us, will go by the wayside. Rules of engagement will go from the presently imposed, don't fire unless fired upon, to total nuclear destruction in the time one can make a phone call.


(2) The military industrial complex Eisenhower warned about was the blending of governmental and arms manufacturing leaders. Such an ill advised merger of the elite would necessarily drag the military into government and take on similar ramifications for the common man. The result would be something like the governments of Iraq, Iran, Russia, Cuba or the like. One day you get the nice Saddam Hussein in a suit, and the next you get the mean Saddam in military uniform. And, instead of folks like the CIA, and the FBI being careful not to violate your rights, you would find yourself slammed into the back of some truck on the way to detention or worse.

Not denying the concept of a central bank is probably not good.

[vector]

2) The military industrial complex Eisenhower warned about was the blending of governmental and arms manufacturing leaders. Such an ill advised merger of the elite would necessarily drag the military into government and take on similar ramifications for the common man. The result would be something like the governments of Iraq, Iran, Russia, Cuba or the like. One day you get the nice Saddam Hussein in a suit, and the next you get the mean Saddam in military uniform. And, instead of folks like the CIA, and the FBI being careful not to violate your rights, you would find yourself slammed into the back of some truck on the way to detention or worse.

something like dick cheney and halliburton?

[Beetle01]

(1) People like you are so shallow and uniformed it's shocking. In the days just before WWII, and during the war. It would have taken a week to steam from Pearl Harbor to say the Solomon Islands. Things were much slower then. In our day, aircraft with enough ordinance to blow the Solomons off the planet can be there in less than a day. Warfare in this day and time is infititely faster as is the threat deadly. The unprepared in this day, won't have time to gear up industry to manufacture war machines, including aircraft and naval vessels ala WWII. If we find ourselves unprepared for a China say, once the sword is placed to our neck all we could do is bow.

IMO, we have leaned way too heavily on the concept of MAD. If we will face a significant threat, and we will, hard and fast choices will have to be made. All this surgical and humane warfare of late, where we try to spare those we consider to be innocent of making war against us, will go by the wayside. Rules of engagement will go from the presently imposed, don't fire unless fired upon, to total nuclear destruction in the time one can make a phone call.


(2) The military industrial complex Eisenhower warned about was the blending of governmental and arms manufacturing leaders. Such an ill advised merger of the elite would necessarily drag the military into government and take on similar ramifications for the common man. The result would be something like the governments of Iraq, Iran, Russia, Cuba or the like. One day you get the nice Saddam Hussein in a suit, and the next you get the mean Saddam in military uniform. And, instead of folks like the CIA, and the FBI being careful not to violate your rights, you would find yourself slammed into the back of some truck on the way to detention or worse.

Not denying the concept of a central bank is probably not good.

1.) In what possible scenario could we have a sword to our throat that having a 5 million man military would prevent? You speak of a plane loaded to the hilt, in what scenario would we not know that thing took off and is headed our way that having more men and women on the ground holding guns would prevent? We would still have satellites, radar, interceptor pilots, and air defense weaponry. Our chances of stopping that attack are the exact same.

No potential enemy has close to the Navy Japan had in WW2, nor could they even get close enough to launch an attack. That would still be the same with less men on the ground holding guns.

Any type of all out war scenario that you seem to fear, is still going to require millions of civilians to be trained. By millions, I mean tens of millions. Having an already extremely large standing army is not going to change the outcome of that war.

The only other option is to have mandatory 2-3 year service within 6 years of being out of high school. This would help prevent your scenario, and would also prevent situations like Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently our Army is a volunteer service. Those people chose that profession, they know the risks. This whole hoorah of we keep you safe and defend freedom is complete BS. I am less safe and less free than I was on 9/12/2001.


2.) The Union of defense contractors and military leaders exists, it is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about. Your comparison to communist states and dictatorships is flawed. The MIC has a huge impact on all facets of out military including intelligence and policy decisions.

[Beetle01]

I know exactly what the facts are Mr. (thinks he) Know(s) Everything about Everything.......NOT

FDR and his gang's attitude was no different that what your spouting off about right now. IMO they are just as much to blame for WWII escalating to the point it did as those who committed the autrocities and initiated the aggressions. They have just as much blood on their hands as anybody. Their apathy cost this world millions of innocent lives as well as millions of soldiers lives. They let our nation's defenses weaken to the point that we were vulnerable. Plain and simple. Their mentality was no different than what yours is today. Look the other way and hope it all just goes away. You had Beetle type attitudes rallying in Pittsburg just days before we were bombed spouting the exact same passive type propaganda that you are.


We have rouge nations all over the world that are nuclear capable, near nuclear capable, or seeking ways to become nuclear capable. All you need is one crazy mad man like what sits in Teheran, like what was in Baghdad or Libya, or some terrorist group to acquire such weapons and hold the rest of the free world hostage. You have to stop some of this stuff in it's tracts before it ever has a chance to bloom. Unfortunately we have no choice but to police the rouges of the world to ensure we are able to continue to live free in this country. It's nut jobs like yourself that cant see the forest for the trees.


Are you sure that you are really not a foreign exchange student from France?

Those people rallying in Pitt had no idea that an attack was pending either. The leaders in D.C. did.

Bob we will never agree, we are not the police of the Earth. If someone is going to get their hands on a nuke, it is going to happen whether we have troops all over the globe or not.

I am for eliminating threats. Much of which can be accomplished without hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground.

I am for striking Iran's nuclear facilities and their means to make war. This can easily be done without boots on the ground. Our ships can launch enough fire power from the sea to eliminate that threat. True, Iran has hardened many of their sites, but they can only hold up to so much punishment. A few days of constant barrages and they will be gone. Their bases and defense structures could be wiped out in a week. Iran is efficient in the ability to set off an EMP attack if they had the nuclear weapon to do it. That would be 100000000 times more devastating than an actual explosion in a city.

What happens then? Hopefully the Persian people rise up against their govt who brought this on them and kick them out of power. We eliminate a "potential" nuclear threat, and hopefully those people install their own form of govt. If that new form of govt in 30 yrs heads down the same path they are now, repeat and wash.

However, in reality I am truly more concerned of Pakistan's nukes. I believe if we are ever hit with a nuke by a terrorist, it will have come from Pakistan.

Nuclear weapons are game changers, and there is truly no way to 100% police them. We do what we can on the intelligence side of things and we have to hope for the best. That is really all we can do, no amount of armed forces is going to fully prevent that.

What worsens the threat even more is constantly being involved in things we have no business being involved in. We have weakened out global standing, bankrupted our country, and created 1000 times more enemies than we had pre 9/11

[TheRealThing]

1.) In what possible scenario could we have a sword to our throat that having a 5 million man military would prevent? You speak of a plane loaded to the hilt, in what scenario would we not know that thing took off and is headed our way that having more men and women on the ground holding guns would prevent? We would still have satellites, radar, interceptor pilots, and air defense weaponry. Our chances of stopping that attack are the exact same.

No potential enemy has close to the Navy Japan had in WW2, nor could they even get close enough to launch an attack. That would still be the same with less men on the ground holding guns.

Any type of all out war scenario that you seem to fear, is still going to require millions of civilians to be trained. By millions, I mean tens of millions. Having an already extremely large standing army is not going to change the outcome of that war.

The only other option is to have mandatory 2-3 year service within 6 years of being out of high school. This would help prevent your scenario, and would also prevent situations like Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently our Army is a volunteer service. Those people chose that profession, they know the risks. This whole hoorah of we keep you safe and defend freedom is complete BS. I am less safe and less free than I was on 9/12/2001.


2.) The Union of defense contractors and military leaders exists, it is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about. Your comparison to communist states and dictatorships is flawed. The MIC has a huge impact on all facets of out military including intelligence and policy decisions.

I'm sorry, my initial asssesment of your level of understanding was a little hasty. Make that dellusional, shallow and uniformed. My post went competely over your head as your response demonstrates.

[Bob Seger]

Those people rallying in Pitt had no idea that an attack was pending either. The leaders in D.C. did.

Bob we will never agree, we are not the police of the Earth. If someone is going to get their hands on a nuke, it is going to happen whether we have troops all over the globe or not.

I am for eliminating threats. Much of which can be accomplished without hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground.
I am for striking Iran's nuclear facilities and their means to make war. This can easily be done without boots on the ground. Our ships can launch enough fire power from the sea to eliminate that threat. True, Iran has hardened many of their sites, but they can only hold up to so much punishment. A few days of constant barrages and they will be gone. Their bases and defense structures could be wiped out in a week. Iran is efficient in the ability to set off an EMP attack if they had the nuclear weapon to do it. That would be 100000000 times more devastating than an actual explosion in a city.

What happens then? Hopefully the Persian people rise up against their govt who brought this on them and kick them out of power. We eliminate a "potential" nuclear threat, and hopefully those people install their own form of govt. If that new form of govt in 30 yrs heads down the same path they are now, repeat and wash.

However, in reality I am truly more concerned of Pakistan's nukes. I believe if we are ever hit with a nuke by a terrorist, it will have come from Pakistan.

Nuclear weapons are game changers, and there is truly no way to 100% police them. We do what we can on the intelligence side of things and we have to hope for the best. That is really all we can do, no amount of armed forces is going to fully prevent that.

What worsens the threat even more is constantly being involved in things we have no business being involved in. We have weakened out global standing, bankrupted our country, and created 1000 times more enemies than we had pre 9/11

Yeah, we can just say "Put that bomb up!!" and that'll be all it takes.:eyeroll:

How about going in and getting a job done and getting out. We have that capability. Stop the bleeding heart poltically correct stunts that make things go on and on forever. You sound like all of the other left wing fruit loop liberals. You all live in your own little fantasy worlds.


BTW, It's crackpot stuff like ObozoCare and all of the other "get something for nothings" for the deadbeats that has destroyed the middle class and bunkrupted this country.

Created 1000 more enemies?? :pleaseont you remember all of Obozo's apologies to everyone in the Muslim world for Americans liking hot dogs , apple pie, and Chevrolets?? Didn't you know we're all in good standing now? All those folks love us now, dont they?

[TheRealThing]

Those people rallying in Pitt had no idea that an attack was pending either. The leaders in D.C. did.

Bob we will never agree, we are not the police of the Earth. If someone is going to get their hands on a nuke, it is going to happen whether we have troops all over the globe or not.

I am for eliminating threats. Much of which can be accomplished without hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground.

I am for striking Iran's nuclear facilities and their means to make war. This can easily be done without boots on the ground. Our ships can launch enough fire power from the sea to eliminate that threat. True, Iran has hardened many of their sites, but they can only hold up to so much punishment. A few days of constant barrages and they will be gone. Their bases and defense structures could be wiped out in a week. Iran is efficient in the ability to set off an EMP attack if they had the nuclear weapon to do it. That would be 100000000 times more devastating than an actual explosion in a city.

What happens then? Hopefully the Persian people rise up against their govt who brought this on them and kick them out of power. We eliminate a "potential" nuclear threat, and hopefully those people install their own form of govt. If that new form of govt in 30 yrs heads down the same path they are now, repeat and wash.

However, in reality I am truly more concerned of Pakistan's nukes. I believe if we are ever hit with a nuke by a terrorist, it will have come from Pakistan.

Nuclear weapons are game changers, and there is truly no way to 100% police them. We do what we can on the intelligence side of things and [B]we have to hope for the best.[/B] That is really all we can do, no amount of armed forces is going to fully prevent that.

What worsens the threat even more is constantly being involved in things we have no business being involved in. We have weakened out global standing, bankrupted our country, and created 1000 times more enemies than we had pre 9/11

I did it again, add naive to the list.

[TheRealVille]

I'm sorry, my initial asssesment of your level of understanding was a little hasty. Make that dellusional, shallow and uniformed. My post went competely over your head as your response demonstrates.

If anybody doesn't agree with the conservatives take on things, they are morons, idiots, uninformed, and a hundred other words to belittle them.

[Bob Seger]

If anybody doesn't agree with the conservatives take on things, they are morons, idiots, uninformed, and a hundred other words to belittle them.

Uh, BTW....... Beetle claims to be a conservative republican. We are allowed to talk amongst ourselves aren't we?


It's always nice to have your little shadow agreeing with you though isn't it? That's precious. :biggrin: