More whining...

Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
found right here...

What the public can't seem to fathom is that the military is the only thing on their entire site mandated by the US Constitution. While public education, children's health, pre-school, and college are nice to have, those things are not mandated by the US Constitution. Congress funds those items because they found out that they can buy the votes to stay elected by tossing those programs crumbs. How many of these programs could be better funded if pork is removed from the system, I wonder...:devious:
 
yeah but arguing original intent could just as easily say that what we're doing over there isn't AT ALL what the framers had in mind. can you construct "provide for the common defense" or whatever it says into regime change 10,000 miles away?

but, then, should we really be bound by a document written during a severe bout of idealism by pre-industrial fellows who never imaged the world we're in now? i wonder...

anyway, how much the war is costing is highly relevant. what am i getting for my tax dollars? how much of my taxes are being spent? what will the economic impact be, say, ten years from now? war is nothing other than an extension of economy, and we all should understand matters of economy.

now, pork removal, that's something we can all get behind...
 
can you construct "provide for the common defense" or whatever it says into regime change 10,000 miles away
Click to expand...

Yes.

They aren't 10,000 miles away.

9-11_towers_burning.jpg


No, Iraq was not responsible for this particular action. However, Iraq, namely Saddam Hussein & his sons were sponsors of international terrorism.

should we really be bound by a document written during a severe bout of idealism by pre-industrial fellows who never imaged the world we're in now? i wonder
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you don't then change the document ot at least have gumption to attempt to rtemove its status.

Without that document, we're nothing but a big Zimbabwe.
 
Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection

Declassified document cites lack of 'evidence of a long-term relationship,' although No. 3 Defense staffer called contact 'mature and symbiotic.'
By Jesse Nunes | csmonitor.com

A declassified report by the Pentagon's acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble provides new insight into the circumstances behind former Pentagon official Douglas Feith's pre-Iraq war assessment of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection — an assessment that was contrary to US intelligence agency findings, and helped bolster the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.

The report, which was made public in summary form in February, was released in full on Thursday by Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a statement accompanying the 121-page report, Senator Levin said: "It is important for the public to see why the Pentagon's Inspector General concluded that Secretary Feith's office 'developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,' which included 'conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.' "
Click to expand...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html
 
it's strange to me how you can resolve that they really weren't responsible - no, lets be real here, the were radically ideologically opposed to those that were responsibible - yet still connect some sort of weird, distorted dots.

*sign?*

no shit!
 
Al Qieda is a specific group out of a much larger cast of characters (Hamas, Hezbolla, etc). Saddam paid Palestinian families for their martyrs. He allowed Salman Pak to train assorted groups, and it only had one use.

Whether he paid, or supported in any way, Usama binLaden & his group, is speculative. That he supported terrorist is not.

The enemy of my enemy...
 
2minkey said:
but, then, should we really be bound by a document written during a severe bout of idealism by pre-industrial fellows who never imaged the world we're in now? i wonder...
Click to expand...

Two words, if you don't like the US Constitution...Constitutional Convention. The only legal way to replace the Constitution outside of overt rebellion in the streets, BTW.
 
Gonz said:
No, Iraq was not responsible for this particular action. However, Iraq, namely Saddam Hussein & his sons were sponsors of international terrorism.
Click to expand...

A declassified report by the Pentagon's acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble provides new insight into the circumstances behind former Pentagon official Douglas Feith's pre-Iraq war assessment of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection — an assessment that was contrary to US intelligence agency findings, and helped bolster the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the point in the first place?
 
Gonz said:
Al Qieda is a specific group out of a much larger cast of characters (Hamas, Hezbolla, etc). Saddam paid Palestinian families for their martyrs. He allowed Salman Pak to train assorted groups, and it only had one use.

Whether he paid, or supported in any way, Usama binLaden & his group, is speculative. That he supported terrorist is not.

The enemy of my enemy...
Click to expand...

for the 89th time.... salman pak was in an area NOT under saddam's control. he didn't allow it, he couldn't do anything about it. and he certainly would NOT have allowed it if he were able, because he's PROFOUNDLY IDEOLOGICALLY OPPPOSED to al quaeda.

yeah, he did sponsor some palestinians. hmmm... i wonder why... maybe it's because the palestinian cause is far more consonant with his ideological leanings... maybe.... yes, that's it!
 
Gato_Solo said:
Two words, if you don't like the US Constitution...Constitutional Convention. The only legal way to replace the Constitution outside of overt rebellion in the streets, BTW.
Click to expand...

sure. it's not that i don't like it. i think it's super dandy. but i don't think it's 'scripture' and i think it should be questioned and re-framed to be consistent with the world we live in.
 
2minkey said:
yeah, he did sponsor some palestinians. hmmm... i wonder why... maybe it's because the palestinian cause is far more consonant with his ideological leanings... maybe.... yes, that's it!
Click to expand...

Don't you get it yet?

When a group attacks our country we obviously need to respond by invading a country who's leader may have given money to families from another country involved in a totally unrelated regional struggle and totally ignore the country where most of the attackers came from that attacked us.

Geez.
 
2minkey said:
sure. it's not that i don't like it. i think it's super dandy. but i don't think it's 'scripture' and i think it should be questioned and re-framed to be consistent with the world we live in.
Click to expand...

Okay...fair enough. Write one of your Congressmen or Senators and ask them to make an amendment to the Constitution. If it passes the House, the Senate, the President, and 2/3 of the states it becomes part of the Constitution. I know you knew that, but I had to take it there. ;)
 
We can't fight an enemy when we're afraid to speak of the enemy. Palestinians who blow up Israel or Saudi's who blow up NYC or Iraqis who blow up bridges are all the same. In this case, even the Persians are lumped with the Arabs because of their beliefs.

I'll say it again. A connection between Iraq & AQ was not in the top 5 reasons. In fact, it barely registered, in reality. It's been supported & kept alive as a diversion.

WMDs.
Link to Terrorism.
12 years of ignoring UN Mandates (which were upheld by the two largest contingents in the subsequent battle)
A seat of Democracy in the ME.
A new place to hang our hats so the Muslims have no complaint about our being in Mecca. (much like the Ieaq-AQ connection, this too was mostly silent)
 
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
Click to expand...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html


Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

Simply can't understand where anyone got the idea...

Memory seem a bit selective regarding the actual facts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top