A New Amendment

[Rohirrim]

We should add a new amendment to the Constitution: Whenever a president is contemplating war, he must stroll down to the memorial of the last war with the randomly chosen mothers, fathers, spouses and/or children of ten veterans who were killed in the last war. And they should walk around that monument, reading the names, looking at all the photos and flowers left behind by previous visitors and seeing the grief of those who are visiting on that day. And when they’re done, they should sit on the grass all together, and have lunch together, and that president should listen to the stories of those ten families while they share what their lost loved one meant to them. After that, he should explain to those families why he thinks it’s a good idea to send American troops into another war. If, after having spent his day that way, this president still thinks that a new war is the only solution, he should write up articles of war, sign them, and then walk down to the Capitol and present those articles of war to Congress for their consideration. And no media is allowed.

[Rascal]

We should add a new amendment to the Constitution: Whenever a president is contemplating war, he must stroll down to the memorial of the last war with the randomly chosen mothers, fathers, spouses and/or children of ten veterans who were killed in the last war. And they should walk around that monument, reading the names, looking at all the photos and flowers left behind by previous visitors and seeing the grief of those who are visiting on that day. And when they’re done, they should sit on the grass all together, and have lunch together, and that president should listen to the stories of those ten families while they share what their lost loved one meant to them. After that, he should explain to those families why he thinks it’s a good idea to send American troops into another war. If, after having spent his day that way, this president still thinks that a new war is the only solution, he should write up articles of war, sign them, and then walk down to the Capitol and present those articles of war to Congress for their consideration. And no media is allowed.

It would not be random.

[Hotrod]

Should he also have to wear a ty-dyed tshirt smoke a joint and sing "Dont worry be happy" ???

[spdirty]

Should he also have to wear a ty-dyed tshirt smoke a joint and sing "Dont worry be happy" ???

Hilarious! LOL Don't forget "Give peace a chance!"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Words of wisdom from Ro.....followed by the screeching of brainless monkeys.

[Spider]

Talk about having your head so far up Bush's áss he has to fart just to give you fresh air ..........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Talk about having your head so far up Bush's áss he has to fart just to give you fresh air ..........

:giggle:

No kidding.

Another example of the stark contrast between the mentality of those (like Ro, a Vietnam vet, for example) who have actually fought in wars and those who have not.

[Spider]

:giggle:

No kidding.

Another example of the stark contrast between the mentality of those (like Ro, a Vietnam vet, for example) who have actually fought in wars and those who have not.
the 101st fighting Keybord squadren ..... worst part is , they probably piss thier pants in a street fight , they would **** all over themselfs in a real war .........Operation Yellow elephant

[spdirty]

the 101st fighting Keybord squadren ..... worst part is , they probably piss thier pants in a street fight , they would **** all over themselfs in a real war .........Operation Yellow elephant


Im a military vet, a reservist (for 9 more months) and volunteered twice to go to the desert asshole. Contrary to what you guys might think, being in the military does not turn everyone into an antiwar pot smoking, tree hugging, puss. Check first before calling people you dont even know chickenhawks. And go f%^& yourself.

[Spider]

Im a military vet, a reservist (for 9 more months) and volunteered twice to go to the desert a-hole. Contrary to what you guys might think, being in the military does not turn everyone into an antiwar pot smoking, tree hugging, puss. Check first before calling people you dont even know chickenhawks. And go f%^& yourself.
Boo Hoo ........ Just cause you say it dont mean shít to me boy .......I could have made the same claim ...............

[Spider]

Ha! good chance you are a snot nosed punk kid stil lwith Mommy and Daddy .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Contrary to what you guys might think, being in the military does not turn everyone into an antiwar pot smoking, tree hugging, puss.

:bs:

So, basically, you're saying that anyone who thinks the president should think long and hard and do some serious soul-searching before he opts to send our troops into harm's way is "an antiwar pot smoking, tree hugging, puss?"

(Funny - people like you were singing an entirely different tune after Somalia in '93.)

Or are you saying that anyone who doesn't think it's a good idea for the president to rush the country into a war based on bogus, trumped-up WMD claims and phony "mushroom cloud" rhetoric is "an antiwar pot smoking, tree hugging, puss?"

Either way, you're a poster boy for failed comprehension and/or intellectual dishonesty.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Paul Craig Roberts: 'Every reason put forward has been proven false: Why did Bush destroy Iraq?'

March 20 is the third anniversary of the Bush regime's invasion of Iraq. US military casualties to date are approximately 20,000 killed, wounded, maimed, and disabled. Iraqi civilian casualties number in the tens of thousands. Iraq's infrastructure is in ruins. Tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed. Fallujah, a city of 300,000 people had 36,000 of its 50,000 homes destroyed by the US military.

Half of the city's former population are displaced persons living in tents.

Thousands of Iraqis have been detained in prisons and hundreds have been brutally tortured. America's reputation in the Muslim world is ruined.

The Bush regime expected a short "cakewalk" war to be followed by the imposition of a puppet government and permanent US military bases.

Instead, US military forces are confronted with an insurgency that has denied control over Iraq to the US military. Chaos rules, and civil war may be coming on top of the insurgency.

On March 9, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man who has been totally wrong about Iraq, told Congress that if the unprecedented violence in Iraq breaks out in civil war, the US will rely primarily on Iraq's security forces to put down civil war.

What Iraqi security forces? Iraq does not have a security force. The Shia have a security force. The Sunnis have a security force, and the Kurds have a security force. The sectarian militias control the streets, towns and cities. If civil war breaks out, the "Iraqi security force" will dissolve into the sectarian militias, leaving the US military in the middle of the melee.

Is this what "support the troops" means?

President Bush's determination to remain in Iraq despite the obvious failure of the attempted occupation puts Bush at odds with the American public and with our troops. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that our troops should be withdrawn. An even larger majority of the troops themselves believe they should be withdrawn.

Yet Bush, who is incapable of admitting a mistake, persists in a strategic blunder that is turning into catastrophe.

Bush's support has fallen to 34 percent.

The war's out of pocket cost to date is approximately $300 billion--every dollar borrowed from foreigners. Economic and budgetary experts have calculated that the ultimate cost of Bush's Iraq war in terms of long-term care for veterans, interest on borrowed money, and resources diverted from productive uses will be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.

What is being achieved for this enormous sacrifice?

No one knows.

Every reason we have been given for the Iraqi invasion has proved to be false. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

Reports from UN weapons inspectors, top level US intelligence officials, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, and leaked top secret documents from the British Cabinet all make it unequivocally clear that the Bush regime first decided to invade Iraq and then looked around for a reason.

Saddam Hussein had no terrorist connection to Osama bin Laden and no role in the 9/11 attack. Hussein was a secular ruler totally at odds with bin Laden's Islamist aims. Every informed person in the world knew this.

When the original justifications for the US invasion collapsed, Bush said that the reason for the invasion was to rid Iraq of a dictator and to put a democracy in its place. Despite all the hoopla about democracy and elections, no Iraqi government has been able to form, and the country is on the brink of civil war. Some Middle East experts believe that violence will spread throughout the region.

The brutal truth is that America's responsibility is extreme. We have destroyed a country and created political chaos for no reason whatsoever.

Seldom in history has a government miscalculated as badly as Bush has in Iraq. More disturbingly, Bush shows no ability to recover from his mistake. All we get from our leader is pig-headed promises of victory that none of our military commanders believe.

Our entire government is lost in confusion. One day Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld tell us that we are having great success in training an Iraqi military and will be able to begin withdrawing our troops in a year. The next day they tell us that we will be fighting the war for decades.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Bush's attempt to cover up his mistake with patriotism will ultimately discredit patriotism.

America has to be big enough to admit a mistake and to bring it to an end.

http://counterpunch.org/roberts03112006.html

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

[Rascal]

Words of wisdom from Ro.....followed by the screeching of brainless monkeys.

Typical name calling.

And those between his post and your typical insulting crap didn't even disagree with it (well sprdity may have)

[spdirty]

:bs:

So, basically, you're saying that anyone who thinks the president should think long and hard and do some serious soul-searching before he opts to send our troops into harm's way is "an antiwar pot smoking, tree hugging, puss?"

(Funny - people like you were singing an entirely different tune after Somalia in '93.)

Or are you saying that anyone who doesn't think it's a good idea for the president to rush the country into a war based on bogus, trumped-up WMD claims and phony "mushroom cloud" rhetoric is "an antiwar pot smoking, tree hugging, puss?"

Either way, you're a poster boy for failed comprehension and/or intellectual dishonesty.

Ok now, lets put this amendment into action and find out what would happen in a real life scenario. Lets say that sometime in the furture North Korea will invade South Korea (very very very very possible). Now, you are saying that while North Korea is about to take over Seoul (it would happen in about a day), as well as taking over our military bases (they could take Osan in about an hour), then before any president responds to try to save South Korea by going to war, he first has to use up critical time that we would need to look at war memorials as well as look at a bunch of flowers and pictures, and then have lunch (make sure its a picnic on the grass!) with Cindy Sheehan and friends and ask theyre permission to go to war in order to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Korean civilians as well as thousands of military personel, then he must write up articles of war, sign them, and then walk down to the Capitol and present those articles of war to Congress for their consideration. How long would this take? (and you guys were bitching about the 7 minutes)

By the time this dog and pony show is finished, it is a much much tougher war to win, and a lot more lives are lost than should have been. But the president would have to do this or he would be violating the constitution, and therefore could be impeached. More proof that stupid feel good policies, amendments, etc. do not work in the real world.

[Rascal]

Ok now, lets put this amendment into action and find out what would happen in a real life scenario. Lets say that sometime in the furture North Korea will invade South Korea (very very very very possible). Now, you are saying that while North Korea is about to take over Seoul (it would happen in about a day), as well as taking over our military bases (they could take Osan in about an hour), then before any president responds to try to save South Korea by going to war, he first has to use up critical time that we would need to look at war memorials as well as look at a bunch of flowers and pictures, and then have lunch (make sure its a picnic on the grass!) with Cindy Sheehan and friends and ask theyre permission to go to war in order to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Korean civilians as well as thousands of military personel, then he must write up articles of war, sign them, and then walk down to the Capitol and present those articles of war to Congress for their consideration. How long would this take? (and you guys were b****ing about the 7 minutes)

By the time this dog and pony show is finished, it is a much much tougher war to win, and a lot more lives are lost than should have been. But the president would have to do this or he would be violating the constitution, and therefore could be impeached. More proof that stupid feel good policies, amendments, etc. do not work in the real world.

Quoted for truth.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok now, lets put this amendment into action and find out what would happen in a real life scenario. Lets say that sometime in the furture North Korea will invade South Korea (very very very very possible). Now, you are saying that while North Korea is about to take over Seoul (it would happen in about a day), as well as taking over our military bases (they could take Osan in about an hour), then before any president responds to try to save South Korea by going to war, he first has to use up critical time that we would need to look at war memorials as well as look at a bunch of flowers and pictures, and then have lunch (make sure its a picnic on the grass!) with Cindy Sheehan and friends and ask theyre permission to go to war in order to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Korean civilians as well as thousands of military personel, then he must write up articles of war, sign them, and then walk down to the Capitol and present those articles of war to Congress for their consideration. How long would this take? (and you guys were b****ing about the 7 minutes)

By the time this dog and pony show is finished, it is a much much tougher war to win, and a lot more lives are lost than should have been. But the president would have to do this or he would be violating the constitution, and therefore could be impeached. More proof that stupid feel good policies, amendments, etc. do not work in the real world.

Funny how you talk about the "real world" after giving us some hypothetical scenario involving NK when we're talking about real-life experiences like Vietnam and Iraq.

Even funnier still that a supporter of the same idiot who got us into the current mess in Iraq would pretend to occupy some sort of high ground when it comes to deciding how and when to wage wars.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And those between his post and your typical insulting crap didn't even disagree with it (well sprdity may have)

The only "insulting crap" here is the fallout from the administration people like you helped elect.

Remember that when you're tempted to climb back up on your high horse.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just require every president and lawmaker who start and or vote for wars that their children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews must serve 2 years in that war.

[spdirty]

Funny how you talk about the "real world" after giving us some hypothetical scenario involving NK when we're talking about real-life experiences like Vietnam and Iraq.

Even funnier still that a supporter of the same idiot who got us into the current mess in Iraq would pretend to occupy some sort of high ground when it comes to deciding how and when to wage wars.


No, this guy was saying it should be a constitutional ammendment regarding ALL WARS! Im giving this scenario because its very possible. Kim Jung Il has vowed to unify the penninsula by force countless times. This very well could be a real life scenario. Stop feeling and start thinking logically. You have to bring up any and all scenarios and circumstances before putting forth a constitutional amendment.

(LABF"S auto-response) "Yeah well Bush lied and is a Nazi and your an idiot!"

[gunns]

Ok now, lets put this amendment into action and find out what would happen in a real life scenario. Lets say that sometime in the furture North Korea will invade South Korea (very very very very possible). Now, you are saying that while North Korea is about to take over Seoul (it would happen in about a day), as well as taking over our military bases (they could take Osan in about an hour), then before any president responds to try to save South Korea by going to war, he first has to use up critical time that we would need to look at war memorials as well as look at a bunch of flowers and pictures, and then have lunch (make sure its a picnic on the grass!) with Cindy Sheehan and friends and ask theyre permission to go to war in order to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Korean civilians as well as thousands of military personel, then he must write up articles of war, sign them, and then walk down to the Capitol and present those articles of war to Congress for their consideration. How long would this take? (and you guys were b****ing about the 7 minutes)

By the time this dog and pony show is finished, it is a much much tougher war to win, and a lot more lives are lost than should have been. But the president would have to do this or he would be violating the constitution, and therefore could be impeached. More proof that stupid feel good policies, amendments, etc. do not work in the real world.

We haven't fought a war that truly was worth fighting and was about fighting for our freedom and way of life, which should be the sole reasons we go to war and sacrifice our citizens, since World War II. Maybe we should "give this scenario a chance". Couldn't be worse than what has happened.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok now, lets put this amendment into action and find out what would happen in a real life scenario. Lets say that sometime in the furture North Korea will invade South Korea (very very very very possible). Now, you are saying that while North Korea is about to take over Seoul (it would happen in about a day), as well as taking over our military bases (they could take Osan in about an hour), then before any president responds to try to save South Korea by going to war, he first has to use up critical time that we would need to look at war memorials as well as look at a bunch of flowers and pictures, and then have lunch (make sure its a picnic on the grass!) with Cindy Sheehan and friends and ask theyre permission to go to war in order to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Korean civilians as well as thousands of military personel, then he must write up articles of war, sign them, and then walk down to the Capitol and present those articles of war to Congress for their consideration. How long would this take? (and you guys were b****ing about the 7 minutes)

By the time this dog and pony show is finished, it is a much much tougher war to win, and a lot more lives are lost than should have been. But the president would have to do this or he would be violating the constitution, and therefore could be impeached. More proof that stupid feel good policies, amendments, etc. do not work in the real world.


Bad analogy.

The hypothetical scenario you are describing is one in which an immediate, clear and present danger and a military threat to American lives exists.

The same cannot be said about Vietnam or Iraq.

Both of these were wars of choice.

To use Ro's word, Bush was "contemplating" an invasion of Iraq even before 9/11. The same PNAC nutjobs who are now driving BushCo's Iraq policy were lobbying Clinton to attack Iraq back in '96.

[spdirty]

We haven't fought a war that truly was worth fighting and was about fighting for our freedom and way of life, which should be the sole reasons we go to war and sacrifice our citizens, since World War II. Maybe we should "give this scenario a chance". Couldn't be worse than what has happened.

Go to Sout Korea and see how those people live compared what how they wouldve lived had we not gone in there then tell me that wasn't a war worth fighting.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, this guy was saying it should be a constitutional ammendment regarding ALL WARS! Im giving this scenario because its very possible. Kim Jung Il has vowed to unify the penninsula by force countless times. This very well could be a real life scenario. Stop feeling and start thinking logically. You have to bring up any and all scenarios and circumstances before putting forth a constitutional amendment.

I can't speak for Ro, but my guess is that he was thinking about wars of choice (as opposed to the kind of scenario you described.)

I guess we'll have to wait for him to clarify.

(LABF"S auto-response) "Yeah well Bush lied and is a Nazi and your an idiot!"

Your "auto-response" can be summarized as "don't criticize Bush - even if he is a liar and a crook and a miserable failure."

[spdirty]

Bad analogy.

The hypothetical scenario you are describing is one in which an immediate, clear and present danger and a military threat to American lives exists.

The same cannot be said about Vietnam or Iraq.

Both of these were wars of choice.

To use Ro's word, Bush was "contemplating" an invasion of Iraq even before 9/11. The same PNAC nutjobs who are now driving BushCo's Iraq policy were lobbying Clinton to attack Iraq back in '96.


And your talking about preemptive war when this amendment just says "contemplating war" meaning "all wars" which qualifies my scenario.

You want to amend the amendment and have it say "preemptive war?" Thats fine, you will get no argument from me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You want to amend the amendment and have it say "preemptive war?" Thats fine, you will get no argument from me.

My guess is that's what Ro was thinking.

We'll have to wait for him to clarify.

But my original point was that Ro is a combat vet - (Vietnam) not some "antiwar pot smoking, tree hugging, puss" like you so eloquently suggested.

[spdirty]

I can't speak for Ro, but my guess is that he was thinking about wars of choice (as opposed to the kind of scenario you described.)

I guess we'll have to wait for him to clarify.



Your "auto-response" can be summarized as "don't criticize Bush - even if he is a liar and a crook and a miserable failure."


Actually, the "auto respnse" was given because you will critisize Bush no matter what the subject...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually, the "auto respnse" was given because you will critisize Bush no matter what the subject...

On a forum entitled "War, Religion, and Politics."

Imagine that!

Gee, what was I thinking?

Bush has given Americans absolutely no reason to think he deserves any sort of criticism on any front.

If only those Americans who don't belong to that 34% who still have Bush's back would just wake up and see what a superbly effective, competent, successful, and honest leader Bush really is. :D

At any rate, your claim is dishonest because the subjects discussed here all pertain to politics and/or Bush's job performance (as opposed to "no matter what the subject.")

[gunns]

Go to Sout Korea and see how those people live compared what how they wouldve lived had we not gone in there then tell me that wasn't a war worth fighting.

I'll give you that, my father fought in that war, but it was not for the reasons stated and it was to prevent another country from taking over and was short.

[spdirty]

On a forum entitled "War, Religion, and Politics."

Imagine that!

Gee, what was I thinking?

Bush has given Americans absolutely no reason to think he deserves any sort of criticism on any front.

If only those Americans who don't belong to that 34% who still have Bush's back would just wake up and see what a superbly effective, competent, successful, and honest leader Bush really is. :D

At any rate, your claim is dishonest because the subjects discussed here all pertain to politics and/or Bush's job performance (as opposed to "no matter what the subject.")


No, its just that a thread which didn't even mention his name as well as my post which had nothing to do with President Bush, just a scenario, was replied to by you with...

"Even funnier still that a supporter of the same idiot who got us into the current mess in Iraq would pretend to occupy some sort of high ground when it comes to deciding how and when to wage wars."

Its impossible to have a discussion with you without reading a post by you bashing the guy. God, if someone started a thread about Arnold proposing something in Cali you go on and on about Bush and how incompetent he is and how all the ppl who voted for him are a bunch of hicks. God, its like your addicted to Bush! No wonder about half the people on this board put you on ignore.

[Spider]

Comparing being attacked to attacking ........ even the law in every city sees the difference in self defense and aggression ........... Fúcking Drama queen

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, its just that a thread which didn't even mention his name as well as my post which had nothing to do with President Bush, just a scenario, was replied to by you with...

:bs:

Perhaps Bush wasn't mentioned by name, but the thread topic was all about the manner in which presidents take America to war.

Its impossible to have a discussion with you without reading a post by you bashing the guy.

http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/3981/smileybawl8nq.gif

Nowadays, in case you haven't noticed, it's almost impossible to turn around without hearing someone "bashing" Bush. (Hint: There are a lot of good reasons for this.)

If you want to be part of the 34% who bury their heads in the sand, then that's your problem - particularly when you're on a "war, religion, and politics" forum.

BTW, the way people like you try to characterize any presentation of facts which exposes Bush's incompetence, impropriety, or criminality as "bashing" is about as dishonest as it gets.

No wonder about half the people on this board put you on ignore.

:D

"About half?"

You took a comprehensive head count, eh?

In any event, bandwagon appeals like the one you're making here are little more than tacit admissions that your case doesn't hold up.

[Rascal]

The only "insulting crap" here is the fallout from the administration people like you helped elect.

Remember that when you're tempted to climb back up on your high horse.

Wrong. Calling people brainless monkeys just because you disagree with them, whether they are right or wrong, is insulting. And I don't need to be on a high horse to realize that simple piece of logic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

........... Fúcking Drama queen

No kidding.

The guy comes onto a forum entitled "war, politics, and religion" and commences to whine when he sees that people are criticizing a hugely unpopular president whose approval numbers look like Tricky Dick's at the climax of Watergate.

Not only does Bush think he's some sort of monarch who is above criticism - so do his followers, apparently.

[Rascal]

I'll give you that, my father fought in that war, but it was not for the reasons stated and it was to prevent another country from taking over and was short.

Explain that.

And from June of 1950 to July of 1953 (actually still going on if you want to be technical about it) is short?

[Spider]

No kidding.

The guy comes onto a forum entitled "war, politics, and religion" and commences to whine when he sees that people are criticizing a hugely unpopular president whose approval numbers look like Tricky Dick's at the climax of Watergate.

Not only does Bush think he's some sort of monarch who is above criticism - so do his followers, apparently.
No kidding ......... But then I doubt Spdirty is old enough to vote .........Much less understand what is going on .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wrong. Calling people brainless monkeys just because you disagree with them, whether they are right or wrong, is insulting. And I don't need to be on a high horse to realize that simple piece of logic.

Yeah - you really proved yourself to be completely above name-calling around the time of the 2004 election and immediately thereafter.

I try - I really do, but sometimes I just can't stand the sort of stupidity and willfull ignorance expressed in the first couple responses to Ro's original post.

It's destroying our country, and these f_cks don't care.

[Spider]

Explain that.

And from June of 1950 to July of 1953 (actually still going on if you want to be technical about it) is short?
seems like every 20 years we have some kind of war ..............

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

seems like every 20 years we have some kind of war ..............

...and recession (usually coincides with a republican administration.)

[Rascal]

Yeah - you really proved yourself to be completely above name-calling around the time of the 2004 election and immediately thereafter.

I try - I really do, but sometimes I just can't stand the sort of stupidity and willfull ignorance expressed in the first couple responses to Ro's original post.

It's destroying our country, and these f_cks don't care.

I know I have insulted people before, but since the mods requested (probably over a year now) to clean up in here I have done my best in complying with their wishes and IMO I have done a good job of that. I may insult people but 95% of the time it's only after being insulted first.

I don't understand how my comment can be thrown into that that category of stupid or willfully ignorant. And I know you are often insulted on a regular basis, but in this case nobody insulted you. If you are trying to present an argument you are not going to help your situation by insulting the person you are talking too (at least with me your not). For the majority of people when they are insulted for their line of thinking more often then not they bunker down in their faulty line of thinking and refuse to budge even when presented with the most obvious of facts.

I've come to realize your love for this country, but I and others who you disagree with also love this country. We just happen to disagree sometimes on what is the best course of action for this country.

[Rascal]

seems like every 20 years we have some kind of war ..............


That doesn't explain his statement for us going to Korea for reasons that were not stated. And it also doesn't explain his comment about the war being short (not the time frame between wars).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I know I have insulted people before, but since the mods requested (probably over a year now) to clean up in here I have done my best in complying with their wishes and IMO I have done a good job of that. I may insult people but 95% of the time it's only after being insulted first.

Yes, I don't deny any of the above.

I don't understand how my comment can be thrown into that that category of stupid or willfully ignorant.

I wasn't referring to your comment.

[Spider]

That doesn't explain his statement for us going to Korea for reasons that were not stated. And it also doesn't explain his comment about the war being short (not the time frame between wars).
I wasnt trying to explain Gunns statement , all I did was make a statement that every 20 years we have a war ....... if it wasnt communism , it was Nazis , or the English , French , Barbery wars, ( Arabs) we faught each other ,civil war ..... Now it is terrorist , and Iraq ................

[Rascal]

Yes, I don't deny any of the above.



I wasn't referring to your comment.

I thought you were since you didn't make the distinction.

Moving on.

[Rascal]

I wasnt trying to explain Gunns statement , all I did was make a statement that every 20 years we have a war ....... if it wasnt communism , it was Nazis , or the English , French , Barbery wars, ( Arabs) we faught each other ,civil war ..... Now it is terrorist , and Iraq ................

Oh.

And people wonder why the world thinks we are a waring nation.

Besides, there is money in war.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wasnt trying to explain Gunns statement , all I did was make a statement that every 20 years we have a war ....... if it wasnt communism , it was Nazis , or the English , French , Barbery wars, ( Arabs) we faught each other ,civil war ..... Now it is terrorist , and Iraq ................

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More context:

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Spider]

Oh.

And people wonder why the world thinks we are a waring nation.

Besides, there is money in war.
Alot of the wars were just ;D you wouldnt hear 1 bitch out of me if we took N.K. and Iran out....... and the war on terrorism is just and right aka. Afghanistan .....in my opinion we put ourself in this postion , we became the pit bull of the UN ,and untill Iraq , I thought we fullfilled that role realy well , I danced a jig when we bombed Kadoffi , that ásshole was in dire need of a good ole fashion ass stomping ..... you know how I feel about iraq , but the actual invasion was a thing that will go down in history , it was just brilliant , Nation building on the other hand .......... so to sum it up , we kicked áss when we needed to ......

[Spider]

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex."

- Dwight D. Eisenhowerand I agree with that , and we didnt go down that road untill Junior took office and went after Iraq ........ but like I told Rascal alot of the wars we have been in were just ............

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

and I agree with that , and we didnt go down that road untill Junior took office and went after Iraq ........ but like I told Rascal alot of the wars we have been in were just ............

Man, I haven't read Ike's farewell address for a long time, and I'm amazed at how prophetic it is - particularly this passage:

Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

So much for the "alert and knowledgeable citizenry," eh?

Good thing Eisenhower didn't live to see the rise of BushCo and Faux News.

[BroncoBuff]

We should add a new amendment to the Constitution: Whenever a president is contemplating war, he must stroll down to the memorial of the last war with the randomly chosen mothers, fathers, spouses and/or children of ten veterans who were killed in the last war. And they should walk around that monument, reading the names, looking at all the photos and flowers left behind by previous visitors and seeing the grief of those who are visiting on that day. And when they’re done, they should sit on the grass all together, and have lunch together, and that president should listen to the stories of those ten families while they share what their lost loved one meant to them. After that, he should explain to those families why he thinks it’s a good idea to send American troops into another war. If, after having spent his day that way, this president still thinks that a new war is the only solution, he should write up articles of war, sign them, and then walk down to the Capitol and present those articles of war to Congress for their consideration. And no media is allowed.

Beautiful, Ro.

The red part makes it real.

[ClevelandBronco]

I'd like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony...

[Rohirrim]

Wow. I guess this took off when I wasn’t looking. I posted this and got no response for a while, so I didn’t come back to it. This thing got inspired by seeing “Jarheads.” My point is that every war since WWII has been an elective war, not a war of necessity for the American people. And yes, I agree with LABF’s posting of Eisenhower’s warnings (interesting to compare the old GOP to the new one, isn’t it?). We have become the world’s armory and the world’s police force. The United States makes money from war. Lots of money. Exactly the opposite of what Washington warned us against in his farewell address about “foreign entanglements.” And exactly what Eisenhower warned us against (and he knew something about the subject).

So many of these wars end up the same way. At the outset, everybody is pumped up on war talk, and excited, and can’t wait to get in there and wipe out the hated enemy and use their new toys and all that training. Visions of “mushroom clouds” dance through our heads. At the end, everybody is standing around in carnage, and like David Byrne saying, “Well, how did I get here?” Then we slap the names of the dead up on some memorial, forget about all those damaged lives and permanently injured, and move on to the next, exciting new war.

I had a very good friend who was a door-gunner on a chopper. He got hit by a rocket. There was nothing to send home, not even dog tags. His mother became an alcoholic and ended up dying in a mental hospital. Kris was her favorite. His name is on the Vietnam Memorial. Hers isn’t. But she was killed by that war just as much as her son was. But we don’t count those people in the final tally. 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam. How many families were destroyed? How many lives were lost to that war? How many sons, left without fathers, went the wrong way? How many daughters? How many suicides? How many alcoholics? How many wrecked cripples wasting away in VA hospitals? We ignore that part of it. We build memorials, and wave the flag and shoot the fireworks, but we ignore that part of it. How many politicians retire rich, getting consulting fees, lobbying fees and golden parachutes from the military-industrial complex? I know I received a letter from the Bendix Corp. just before I got out of the Army. They wanted to pay me big bucks to go train Saudis in the use and care of APCs, and I was only a Sgt. I tore it up and threw it in the trash.

Now we have a new war. How will the wreckage of this one reverberate throughout our lives? And this war was a mistake. We’re starting to realize that now. Afghanistan wasn’t, but Iraq was. We were lied to, and we’re still being lied to. Listen to old tapes of Westmoreland during Vietnam. This General Pace not only sounds exactly like him, he’s saying the same exact things. Like Kerry asked during Vietnam, once you realize that a war is a mistake, how many more should die for it before you get out? Perhaps the whole point to this amendment idea (which wasn’t entirely serious – just symbolic) is this: Why don’t we have a Secretary of Peace? How can we have peace on earth while a huge part of our economy is derived from building and selling weapons of war?

Remember the first Gulf War? Wasn’t it fun? Be honest. Wasn’t it fun to watch those targeting films when you see that cruise missile zero in on a convoy and then, Kaboom!, blast those rugheads into eternity! Just like a video game. War is fun! Sure, some innocent refugees, old people, women and children, got caught up in the convoys, sitting in buses, trying to run for their lives, but so what? Too bad for them. Wrong place, wrong time. War is hell. Hey, as long as I don’t have to smell it, it’s all good. Right? Makes for some cool video. We love it. We love war.

"I love this job; I thank God for every ****ing day he gives me in the Corps. Hoo-rah." - Staff Sgt. Sykes (Jamie Foxx) “Jarheads”

Wake up, people. We have become Rome.

P.S.: Rent “Jarheads” and “All’s Quiet on the Western Front” and “Dr. Strangelove” and “Casualties of War” and “Full Metal Jacket”

[Rohirrim]

To borrow from LABF:

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Rascal]

Wow. I guess this took off when I wasn’t looking. I posted this and got no response for a while, so I didn’t come back to it. This thing got inspired by seeing “Jarheads.” My point is that every war since WWII has been an elective war, not a war of necessity for the American people. And yes, I agree with LABF’s posting of Eisenhower’s warnings (interesting to compare the old GOP to the new one, isn’t it?). We have become the world’s armory and the world’s police force. The United States makes money from war. Lots of money. Exactly the opposite of what Washington warned us against in his farewell address about “foreign entanglements.” And exactly what Eisenhower warned us against (and he knew something about the subject).

So many of these wars end up the same way. At the outset, everybody is pumped up on war talk, and excited, and can’t wait to get in there and wipe out the hated enemy and use their new toys and all that training. Visions of “mushroom clouds” dance through our heads. At the end, everybody is standing around in carnage, and like David Byrne saying, “Well, how did I get here?” Then we slap the names of the dead up on some memorial, forget about all those damaged lives and permanently injured, and move on to the next, exciting new war.

I had a very good friend who was a door-gunner on a chopper. He got hit by a rocket. There was nothing to send home, not even dog tags. His mother became an alcoholic and ended up dying in a mental hospital. Kris was her favorite. His name is on the Vietnam Memorial. Hers isn’t. But she was killed by that war just as much as her son was. But we don’t count those people in the final tally. 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam. How many families were destroyed? How many lives were lost to that war? How many sons, left without fathers, went the wrong way? How many daughters? How many suicides? How many alcoholics? How many wrecked cripples wasting away in VA hospitals? We ignore that part of it. We build memorials, and wave the flag and shoot the fireworks, but we ignore that part of it. How many politicians retire rich, getting consulting fees, lobbying fees and golden parachutes from the military-industrial complex? I know I received a letter from the Bendix Corp. just before I got out of the Army. They wanted to pay me big bucks to go train Saudis in the use and care of APCs, and I was only a Sgt. I tore it up and threw it in the trash.

Now we have a new war. How will the wreckage of this one reverberate throughout our lives? And this war was a mistake. We’re starting to realize that now. Afghanistan wasn’t, but Iraq was. We were lied to, and we’re still being lied to. Listen to old tapes of Westmoreland during Vietnam. This General Pace not only sounds exactly like him, he’s saying the same exact things. Like Kerry asked during Vietnam, once you realize that a war is a mistake, how many more should die for it before you get out? Perhaps the whole point to this amendment idea (which wasn’t entirely serious – just symbolic) is this: Why don’t we have a Secretary of Peace? How can we have peace on earth while a huge part of our economy is derived from building and selling weapons of war?

Remember the first Gulf War? Wasn’t it fun? Be honest. Wasn’t it fun to watch those targeting films when you see that cruise missile zero in on a convoy and then, Kaboom!, blast those rugheads into eternity! Just like a video game. War is fun! Sure, some innocent refugees, old people, women and children, got caught up in the convoys, sitting in buses, trying to run for their lives, but so what? Too bad for them. Wrong place, wrong time. War is hell. Hey, as long as I don’t have to smell it, it’s all good. Right? Makes for some cool video. We love it. We love war.

"I love this job; I thank God for every ****ing day he gives me in the Corps. Hoo-rah." - Staff Sgt. Sykes (Jamie Foxx) “Jarheads”

Wake up, people. We have become Rome.

P.S.: Rent “Jarheads” and “All’s Quiet on the Western Front” and “Dr. Strangelove” and “Casualties of War” and “Full Metal Jacket”

Good post.

I'm not going to disagree that we spend too much on the military (despite my employeer being the military). Dwight hit the nail on the head in his farewell speach on multiple areas.

The problem is that the military has been smart in securing their money every year. Every state has thousands of jobs because of the military and you think a congressman is going to take away those jobs? Hell no. Congressman love the power and their primary concern unfortunately is to remain in power. There was a reason why the B-2 has components made in every state...and it isn't for logistics.

We've been Rome for a while.

I own those movies.

[bendog]

What I laugh about is this notion of "new" preemptive war. Since Truman we've believed in preemptive war. If we knew the "Reds" were coming, we'd have nuked their asses, and they knew it. But bushii is selling his notion of nation building and empire building on 'terrism' and 'pree-emteeve waah.'

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Three options for America's future

Great nations must sometimes move expeditiously - and creatively - to avert catastrophe, especially when leaders have proven themselves unfit to lead. Such a moment now confronts the United States as George W. Bush and his inner circle have demonstrated on multiple fronts that they lack the wisdom and competence to protect America's future.

Yet even as Bush's failures come into sharper focus - from Iraq to Katrina to U.S. port security to the exploding national debt - the trickier question is whether the American people can act with the unity and foresight to implement a solution.

At this critical time, the greatest obstacle may be an unwillingness to consider "unthinkable" options that might actually offer the best hope.

So, at this third anniversary of Bush's ruinous invasion of Iraq - with more than 2,300 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead - there is reason to look at three alternative scenarios for the future, from one that might be best for America (though the most fanciful) to what could lie ahead if events continue as they are (the most likely).


Option One: The Agnew-Nixon Solution.

From Bush's rookie failure to cut short his month-long vacation after receiving the Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence warning about Osama bin-Laden "determined to attack inside the U.S." through his inability today to stabilize Iraq, Bush has proven that the U.S. Supreme Court's interference in Election 2000 was a grave historic error.

If the Supreme Court had simply opted for the principled solution - to grant enough time for a full and fair recount of all legal Florida votes - Florida would have landed narrowly in Vice President Al Gore's column, as later unofficial tabulations found. Gore, the candidate who also won the national popular vote, would have become President.

Instead, five Republican justices - Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy and O'Connor - put partisanship ahead of legal principles to install Bush in the White House. With that decision on Dec. 12, 2000, American history took a dark turn.

Since then, if the past five years have shown anything, it is that Gore's seasoning and priorities were a much better fit for the complex challenges facing the United States than were Bush's inexperience, rashness and unilateralist tendencies.

While the nerdy Gore might not have made an ideal President, he was possibly the best qualified American to face the nation's pressing threats, including global warming, the need for alternative fuels, worldwide economic competition and Islamic terrorism. He had experience working with other nations to address complex international problems and with balancing the federal budget.

At the time of Election 2000, the federal government was running surpluses and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was fretting about difficulties that might arise from paying off the federal debt entirely. That was one problem that George W. Bush did solve, as the federal debt now is hitting record highs, with the debt limit rising $3 trillion on Bush's watch to a total of $9 trillion.

Bush's government borrowing has become a ticking time bomb inside the U.S. economy as foreigners from China to the United Arab Emirates grow more and more leery about buying up the huge American debt. Combined with Bush's appetite for costly foreign military adventures, the fiscal explosion could come earlier rather than later.

Fixing a Mistake

So, Option One would be a national recognition of the Supreme Court's historic mistake in 2000 and an adoption of a bipartisan strategy to rectify it - putting the United States back on the course that the American voters chose five years ago. This option also could open the door to genuine bipartisanship, possibly even a unity government.

Responsible Republicans would join with Democrats in telling Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that their patriotic duty now is to admit their many mistakes and do what's best for the country - a sequential resignation, as occurred in Richard Nixon's second term when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned and was replaced by Gerald Ford, who then became President upon Nixon's resignation.

Only this time, the goal of bipartisanship would be best served by having Cheney replaced by Democrat Gore, who could then take over the Presidency upon Bush's resignation. Gore could reach out to pragmatic Republicans, the likes of Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana or Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, for a Vice President.

This new unity government could then make the hard decisions to extricate U.S. troops from the Iraq quagmire, fashion a smarter counter-terrorism strategy and start rebuilding American credibility in the world. Gore also could apply his depth of knowledge about global warming and alternative fuels to chart a course toward energy independence.

Option One's bipartisanship could reach into Congress, too, where budget realism could overcome Bush's radical anti-tax ideology. To protect the future strength of the dollar and the health of the U.S. economy, Bush's far-as-the-eye-can-see deficits would be reined in and federal spending would be focused carefully on top national priorities.

In short, the shock therapy of an Agnew-Nixon solution would stop the political drift that is now pulling the nation into some very dangerous waters.

That said, today's political reality - especially the deeply angry right-wing political/media infrastructure - makes Option One virtually "unthinkable," even fanciful. George W. Bush and his dead-enders would never admit they've made mistakes, let alone relinquish power to a Democrat. Which brings us to Option Two.

Option Two: Throw the Bums Out

Option Two would be a full-scale political battle for the nation's future and for its soul.

With Bush and Cheney dug in - and conceivably lashing out with more military operations abroad, such as a military assault on Iran - the American voters would have to intervene via Election 2006 putting in a Democratic House and/or a Democratic Senate that would confront Bush.

A House Judiciary Committee under the chairmanship of Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, would demand documents about Bush's secret policies and investigate Bush's various abuses of power - policies of torture, warrantless wiretaps, detentions without trials and domestic propaganda.

But Bush, who believes he holds "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as Commander in Chief, would surely refuse to cooperate, forcing Congress to subpoena records and eventually consider holding the Executive in contempt. [For more on Bush's claims to power, see Consortiumnews.com's "The End of Unalienable Rights."]

The intensity of the political battle would deepen with the nation split into two warring camps: on one side, Americans demanding that Bush be held accountable under the laws and the U.S. Constitution - and on the other, Bush loyalists calling his critics "traitors."

Bush's megalomania, as a modern-day emperor who rages when aides bring him bad news, would prevent meaningful compromise. If Congress stuck to its guns and pressed for impeachment, a full-scale constitutional crisis would ensue.

There's also the question of what Bush would do if he were faced with impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. Would he go - as Richard Nixon finally did, waving his V-for-victory salute and flying into political exile - or would Bush resist with whatever forces remained at his disposal?

Option Three: Capitulation to the Leader

Most likely, however, the implausibility of Option One and the dangers of Option Two would lead Americans to settle on a passive Option Three, in which Bush continues as President for the next three years, even as he consolidates his authoritarian powers and leads the United States deeper into the neoconservative delusions of "preemptive" wars.

Without a pushback from Congress, Bush is sure to press his theories of the "unitary executive" domestically and his strategy of "preemptive wars" internationally. For instance, despite the Iraq disaster, Bush reaffirmed his commitment to the doctrine of "preemption" in his new national security strategy paper issued March 16.

Rather than showing signs of regret for invading Iraq over bogus weapons of mass destruction, Bush simply issued a new warning - against Iran, identifying it as his next primary target.

Indeed, Bush's escalating rhetoric against Iran has prompted some analysts to conclude that Bush will launch at least air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities before the U.S. elections in November 2006.

Bush's political advisers still view national security as his strongest suit for blocking Democratic electoral gains. So, another foreign crisis - with Bush talking and acting tough - could be expected to intimidate the Democrats and rally his base.

Moreover, many of Bush's neoconservative foreign policy advisers retain their faith in a policy of "creative destruction" in the Middle East with the goal of shattering the status quo and transforming Muslim nations into non-threatening pro-American states that also accept Israel.

Rather than building support for the United States in the Middle East, however, Bush's Iraq War and revelations of prisoner abuse in U.S. detention centers have touched off tidal waves of anti-Americanism that threaten to inundate Washington's regional allies.

So, while Bush rattles sabers against Iran ostensibly to prevent Muslim extremists from getting their hands on a nuclear bomb, one consequence of Bush's strategy could be the destabilization of the pro-U.S. Pakistani dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who is facing a growing domestic challenge from Islamic militants.

Ironically then, a U.S. attack on Iran to prevent its hypothetical development of nuclear weapons in a decade or so could lead to the rapid collapse of the Musharraf government and put Pakistan's existing nuclear arsenal in the hands of radical Pakistani Muslims, with close ties to Osama bin-Laden's al-Qaeda.

Bush's air strikes against Iran also could lead to retaliation by Tehran against U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq. With close ties to Iraq's new Shiite-dominated government, Iran could instigate bloody reprisals against American soldiers, including vulnerable U.S. trainers working inside the new Iraqi security forces.

Iran and angry Arab states could play the oil card, too, slashing American supplies or at least driving the prices up to levels that would endanger the U.S. economy. Already, some Arab oil ministries are quietly shifting some of their oil trading from dollars to euros, a transition that could further weaken the dollar and force a nasty restructuring of the American economy.

In short, the "safe" political option - to let Bush operate much as he has since Sept. 11, 2001 - has consequences that may be more dangerous than the other two more confrontational options. [For our early assessment of "preemption," see "Bush's Grim Vision"; for an early warning about Iraq, see "Bay of Pigs Meets Black Hawk Down."]

There certainly are other potential future scenarios - beyond these three - that merit consideration. But the larger point is that U.S. citizens may have little choice other than to begin pondering difficult options that go beyond what's envisioned by today's conventional wisdom.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/031706.html

[Rohirrim]

Since then, if the past five years have shown anything, it is that Gore's seasoning and priorities were a much better fit for the complex challenges facing the United States than were Bush's inexperience, rashness and unilateralist tendencies.

While the nerdy Gore might not have made an ideal President, he was possibly the best qualified American to face the nation's pressing threats, including global warming, the need for alternative fuels, worldwide economic competition and Islamic terrorism. He had experience working with other nations to address complex international problems and with balancing the federal budget.
Ain't that the truth?