President Bush says that it is our right to criticize and debate the strategies about Iraq.
Then many other political conservatives, acting almost on cue, seem to announce that such debate is dangerous, un-American, treasonous, and helps our enemies.
When moderates or liberals complain about the President's strategy, they are called Treasonous. When those who disagree with the Right complain that blocking such debate is itself Un-American and against Freedom of Speech, the conservative supporters say, "Well President Bush never said disagreeing with him was treason, so go ahead."
Yet if they go ahead, they are called treasonous and haters of the military.
Well I have a solution.
I will critique the President's strategies whenever I believe they are wrong.
If you complain that I am helping the enemy or being un-American I'll reply, "No, I am following the will of The President of the United States by having this debate. You are being the Un-American, Un-Patriotic, traitor to our President by suggesting I stop."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think the terrorists are following your commentary, say what you want, killing people to secure that right for you would be pointless if you did not use it. Do not make the mistake of thinking your opinion is shaking the foundations of heaven.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: I do not think the terrorists are following your commentary, say what you want, killing people to secure that right for you would be pointless if you did not use it. Do not make the mistake of thinking your opinion is shaking the foundations of heaven.
Nor should you mistake us for anyone who cares about your opinion, regardless of your new screen name.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow that thread went down hill fast, I sense another lock coming up...
I should have continued earlier with the fact that what Congress says, however, is scrutinized by foriegn powers, giving them hope is 'comfort and aid' and verges on treason. Cutting funding for the troops engaged in the defense of our security interests is treason.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet it is constitutionally mandated that Congress has the power to cut the funds? How can they know that whether to cut the funds or not unless they have an open and frank debate on the issues?
If you are Congressman A and you get a lot of complaints from people in your district, from soldiers, families of soldiers, and friends of soldiers, all demanding that what they consider the wrong strategy the President is proposing be stopped, how do you listen to the will of the people you represent?
Or should Congress just give up its constitutionally given powers and fall in line behind the President no matter what?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Congress tells the president "We're cutting funding, you have a month to get them out of there, we'll give you whatever funds you need to have them out in a month." And the president refuses to do so, who is really treasonous there? If the President wrecklessly leaves them there knowing the money is going to stop flowing, it's HIS fault for being an irresponsible CinC.
Furthermore,
quote:I do not think the terrorists are following your commentary, say what you want, killing people to secure that right for you would be pointless if you did not use it.
I don't think the terrorists spend their days browsing internet forums and watching C-SPAN. Most of Iraq gets four hours of electricity a day, I'd be surprised if they spent it checking on what Americans have to say. These are people who've fought and waited for literally thousands of years in conflicts JUST LIKE THIS. Do we really think they might give up tomorrow, or a year, or a decade from now just because we display some facade of iron will? Give me a break. It's ridiculous to assume that. It shows an utter lack of knowledge on the history of the area. Palestinians, facing much more bleak conditions and far more crackdowns have been fighting for five DECADES for what they want, in a land surrounded by a giant concrete wall with frequent Israeli incursions to cease arms and destroy bomb making facilities. Iraq is an open arms market, and the border is pourous, and we're supposed to have it cleaned up in a couple years? It would be hysterical if it weren't so deadly serious.
As for the second part of your quote up there. I say this with all honesty, and I really don't care how it sounds: I don't believe anything being done in Iraq at this point is helping to secure my freedom or liberty at all. If anything it's only making the world more dangerous. So don't try the 'fighting for my freedoms' line on me, I don't buy it. I appreciate the fact that any soldier volunteers to lay down his life for his country, but in THIS war, I don't think anything is being accomplished, and I refuse to be labeled or browbeat by that argument, should you, or anyone else try and use it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should have continued earlier with the fact that what Congress says, however, is scrutinized by foriegn powers, giving them hope is 'comfort and aid' and verges on treason. Cutting funding for the troops engaged in the defense of our security interests is treason.
Our founding fathers were apparently very strange folk. According to you, our nation was founded on the principle that congress be demanded to commit treason as part of their job.
Alternately, you're abusing terminology, like the same folks who blathered about the New York Times' 'lawbreaking treason.' Take your pick.
posted
I don't know how to state what I'm wondering precisely, so I'll just say it. Is it possible to aid the enemy with words, and are there any moral limits on doing this?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the folks who wrote the Constitution might have a thing to say about the idea that any act that passes Congress is inherently not treasonable or even Treason. It isn't prosecutable...by ordinary standards, at least. But we do have the idea that an act passed by Congress might be unconstitutional, and thus illegal. I see no inherent reason that it wouldn't be possible for an act passed by Congress to be treasonable. And of course there are many acts that individual members of Congress perform, as members of Congress, which are still illegal and may constitute treason.
But for me...feel free to say what you want. I don't care whether it's "treason" or whatever, since I do not believe that the existing government of the United States can currently derive authority from the Constitution or any other legitimate mandate of the people.
Do as you please.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
More Constitution bending, I had a hoot today listening to the list of State Supreme court cases in the 19th century that struck down state gun control laws as unconstitutional under the second amendment, and a litany of state laws that required a man traveling more then a certain distance to carry a gun.
I thank God that special relativity covers distortions of spacetime and twisting meaning into entirely new shapes or we would have a tear in the universe to deal with.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
It's also true that the framers of the Constitution decided that there was a need for the voice of the people to be heard, but that there needed to be balance and people whose job it is to take more into account than current popular sentiment.
I'm really not sure what you're on about with the gun control stuff. It's not like we haven't got hundreds of examples of SCOTUS and the state and US Congress reaching different conclusions.
SCOTUS is ALSO part of our system of government. They aren't outside it either.
It doesn't always work, and it NEVER works perfectly, but it is a system that we collectively decided to live and work under. If you want to change it, get elected and/or convince enough people that there's a problem.
So far, you've only convinced me that you don't really understand how it is supposed to work, just that you think some of the decisions weren't very good.
Ultimately, registering your dissatisfaction is a lot less potent an argument than outlining how you'd fix the system would be. Remember though, it has to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible...
quote: It's also true that the framers of the Constitution decided that there was a need for the voice of the people to be heard, but that there needed to be balance and people whose job it is to take more into account than current popular sentiment.
Ironic that it is okay for the government to 'hear voices' when its judges doing the acting, but when the executive (the President) tries to do his job without recourse to popular opinion he is vilified.
What a strange world where Lawyers and Judges are viewed as our defenders instead of our actual defenders like the Military, Border Patrol and Coast Guard.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
They both are. I don't know where the 'instead of' comes from.
I don't blame the President for not listening to the people. If he were right, I think he'd be duly justified in ignoring a shortsighted population that is clearly wrong.
I just don't think that's the case, so let the villification ensue! Let's be honest though, the man hasn't even given us a half hearted effort in two or three years to explain what he's doing with Iraq. We've gotten the same speech for a few years now, and no one buys it anymore. If he wants my support for his plans, or anyone elses' support, he needs to tell us what he is doing, why he is doing it, and what he intends to get out of it. Absent that, I think we're pretty well justified in questioning actions that don't seem to have a lot of merit to them.
Blind faith in someone that constantly lets us down is stupid and dangerous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't care whether it's "treason" or whatever
1. you just went out of your way to lecture us on your definition of treason through action.
2. you just exclaimed unmistakably on this very forum that you take it personally when executive actions or people are assaulted in a way which matches your definition of treasonous speech or sentiment.
3. you have actually invested quite a lot of runaround in the act of actively and emphatically caring about actions that you define as treason, and caring about the perceived persecution by the bodies of thought and action that you label as the facilitators of such acts.
Now, I know that it's really not a surprise to anyone that your position is reliably waffling hither and tither, but I guess you could start aiming for some consistency in regard to your pedantry!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have never once forgotten that it's the job of the President to commit troops. In the short term, he's allowed to do it without the consent of Congress. But not in the long term.
When a President tries to twist that "advise and consent" process by lying to the people and misusing information, then he is worthy of vilification.
Do you think for one minute that if we'd had an opportunity to truly examine the evidence against Iraq, we would have ended up implementing the President's plan? I don't believe that. I believe that even the GOP faithful would've realized that the public will for that war was non-sustainable given the evidence, and the ground-truth of the cultures we'd be dealing with.
That discussion didn't happen when it needed to. It is starting to happen now. With predictable results.
And, you know what, I see the current administration as having perverted the system in order to get their way, not upholding it. SCOTUS acts only on cases that are brought to them, and then, not all of those cases either. It's a far cry from a President who consciously decided to push the envelop of executive powers/privileges.
You may need to bone up on Cheney's history, by the way, to see what a poisonous "patriot" that man has become.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
I have never once forgotten that it's the job of the President to commit troops. In the short term, he's allowed to do it without the consent of Congress. But not in the long term.
When a President tries to twist that "advise and consent" process by lying to the people and misusing information, then he is worthy of vilification.
Do you think for one minute that if we'd had an opportunity to truly examine the evidence against Iraq, we would have ended up implementing the President's plan? I don't believe that. I believe that even the GOP faithful would've realized that the public will for that war was non-sustainable given the evidence, and the ground-truth of the cultures we'd be dealing with.
That discussion didn't happen when it needed to. It is starting to happen now. With predictable results.
And, you know what, I see the current administration as having perverted the system in order to get their way, not upholding it. SCOTUS acts only on cases that are brought to them, and then, not all of those cases either. It's a far cry from a President who consciously decided to push the envelop of executive powers/privileges.
You may need to bone up on Cheney's history, by the way, to see what a poisonous "patriot" that man has become.
posted
See Sadr post, Lavalamp has lost his Counter Bean privileges until he recants and apologizes for his insults.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: What a strange world where Lawyers and Judges are viewed as our defenders instead of our actual defenders like the Military, Border Patrol and Coast Guard.
In my lifetime, my rights have been better-protected by lawyers and judges than by any military action.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Lavalamp has lost his Counter Bean privileges until he recants and apologizes for his insults.
That's probably the stupidest condescension of a position I've ever heard. Of course, I can savor the irony of the fact that you're trying to pull that kind of a stunt in a thread titled "Shutting down debate."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I don't know how to state what I'm wondering precisely, so I'll just say it. Is it possible to aid the enemy with words, and are there any moral limits on doing this?
Yes, it doesn't take anything more than words to tell our enemies state secrets, to tell them about spies in their midst, to tell them where our troops will be and how they can be attacked. Words can definately aid the enemy. But not in the way you mean. I don't think expressing opinions will aid the enemy, I think it defeats him.
The war on terrorism isn't about Iraq or Afghanistan, they're simply battlefields. The war on terror is a clash of cultures, a war between freedom and tyranny. The enemy hates us because they hate our way of life, and they hate our freedoms. I think the enemy is emboldened every time they hear someone argue that we should not exercise those freedoms, because that is a blow for tyranny. Do you think the purpose of September 11th was just to kill three or four thousand people? Of course it wasn't. The purpose of September 11th was to breed terror. Listen carefully to the people who tell us that if we disagree with the president the terrorist will win, and tell me, do you think they succeeded?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never heard anyone say that if you disagree with the President the terrorists will win (although I did hear that about canceling the Oscars -- jokingly, I hope); so I can't comment on whether those people succeeded or what they meant.
So: Tokyo Rose was not doing anything wrong? (I'm omitting for now the strong possibility that she was under duress, which could excuse her action.) Running a radio show to demoralize US troops is an OK thing for Americans to do? I tend to think of it as wrong to try to make our troops less effective and our enemies more effective, although I'm not sure where to draw the line.
Telling our enemies, "You just hang in there and keep killing US soldiers, and if you do, you'll win -- we're working on getting the US to pull out -- so don't give up!" -- if someone did this, would it be bad?
--
Side issue: why our enemy hates us. I can't confirm that they did September 11 to breed terror, or solely to breed terror.
I think we can do a better job on saying what PA and Hamas are about. The stated goal is to get Israel to be a Palestinian homeland. Every time Israel grants concessions, even including territory (which is what they say they want), Palestinian terrorists use that new land to stage attacks on Israel, thus stopping the negotiation process that gives PA more land. It's as if you said you wanted pizza, but you shoot anybody who tries to deliver one. (And do drive-bys of the pizza joint.)
So I conclude that PA doesn't want land as much as it wants something else. Based on what it does, what it wants most is to kill Jews.
Why is al-Qaeda interested in killing Americans (and Aussies, Indonesians, Saudis, Iraqis, Germans...)? They say (bin Laden says) it's to defend Palestine (although the immediate effect of 9/11 was the US telling Israel, do what you want, we've got other fish to fry) and Islam. What does it mean to defend Islam? Obviously not defending Moslems, because al-Qaeda kills Moslems. Spreading the faith? Baptists do it with missionaries, and it works a lot better. Spreading one brand of it? Saudi clerics do it pretty well by funding madrassas.
So I conclude bin Laden's full of it, whether he knows it or not.
It could be that making Wahabbism exciting by taking on the biggest Goliath (and every David in sight, too) makes those madrassas work better, so I'll grant that as a possibility: bin Laden makes Islam exciting. Another possibility is that he wants to be a hero, and taking on Goliath is the way to do it. I'll also grant a friend's view of this, which is that al-Qaeda is committing suicide by cop. If they ever do provoke the US enough that we have no doubt al-Qaeda can hurt us, we'll do worse than invade Iraq and try to avoid civilian casualties; we'll go nuclear.
Speculation, though. I don't know what's going on in bin Laden's brain, beyond what he says on those tapes. He does seem to get a significant amount of talking points from people like Michael Moore, but maybe he doesn't believe them, either. It's hard to see why he'd care about Halliburton, anyway.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another issue: who has the authority to end the war.
Since Congress has the sole power to declare war, I would tend to think whether we're at war legally depends on Congress. The President would have the right to determine how we pull out (although stretching it to years would clearly be wrong).
But based on what others are saying in the media, this may not be correct.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al-Qaeda publised a book of its goals, it is pretty straight forward, their plan is to use oil dependency to paralyze and divide the west, bankrupt the US by using unconventional attacks against high value targets, unite all Islam under a Caliph, use that force to destroy Isreal, conquer Europe, Africa and China. Isolate the US and destroy it, paralyze it by cutting off oil, bring the world under a new dark age of Shara Law.
One interesting thing that my studies have brought me to is the remarkablly short chain of people that connect the Nazis to the Bathists, a Nazi SS corp of Muslims from Bosnia with a dream of being given Africa and the Middle East to rule. It is the same infection, in Bosnia, in Iraq, in Nazi Germany. An infection we only missed in this country because we looked it in the eye and rejected it. So many of the new ideas that the Nazi's embraced were born here. We still come up with a lot of really cool very bad ideas...
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will: the position of Commander in Chief has been generally interpreted to allow the President to deploy the troops however he wants; after all, they're needed in situations where there isn't a war. This makes Congress's power to declare war mostly useful as a bully pulpit if the President gets into an unpopular war. There are some restrictions on what the President can do absent a declaration, but they're usually more related to civil rights and the like, not the deployment of troops.
However, Congress unequivocally has the power of the purse (little as they exercise it at times). If they cut off the money, the troops are coming home. The President has no authority to spend money Congress has not authorized him to spend, on anything.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: wow that thread went down hill fast, I sense another lock coming up...
I should have continued earlier with the fact that what Congress says, however, is scrutinized by foriegn powers, giving them hope is 'comfort and aid' and verges on treason. Cutting funding for the troops engaged in the defense of our security interests is treason.
Bullshit. It is a right specifically given to them in the Constitution.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:See Sadr post, Lavalamp has lost his Counter Bean privileges until he recants and apologizes for his insults.
You are such a bloody hypocrite, Bean Counter You know, this is the first time I've ever wanted you to post more, so you'll be banned again more quickly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I have never heard anyone say that if you disagree with the President the terrorists will win (although I did hear that about canceling the Oscars -- jokingly, I hope); so I can't comment on whether those people succeeded or what they meant.
So: Tokyo Rose was not doing anything wrong? (I'm omitting for now the strong possibility that she was under duress, which could excuse her action.) Running a radio show to demoralize US troops is an OK thing for Americans to do? I tend to think of it as wrong to try to make our troops less effective and our enemies more effective, although I'm not sure where to draw the line.
Telling our enemies, "You just hang in there and keep killing US soldiers, and if you do, you'll win -- we're working on getting the US to pull out -- so don't give up!" -- if someone did this, would it be bad?
I don't actually know who Tokyo Rose is or what she did so I can't comment on that portion of your post. I'll look it up.
As to the second, I do think it's morally wrong to tell terrorists to kill US soldiers. I don't think it's treason, and I don't think it's what Democrats are doing.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I do think it's treasonous to deliberately encourage the killing of American soldiers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...well, I'm comforted by your assertion that it isn't treason.
I agree, but only because I don't regard myself as being under the citizenship protections of the United States. I think that it would be treason for someone who enjoyed the full benefits of citizenship, like a Congressman.
I don't think that it's treason for declared enemies to kill soldiers, particularly if those soldiers are engaged in combat. I don't know whether or not the extreme leftists rise to the level of being declared enemies of this country. I think that they should have the balls to come right out and say it. Don't say that you regard the government as illegitimate and then crouch behind the protections of the very citizenship you despise. Well, not like that's going to be an option for much longer anyway, so it doesn't matter, does it?
Still, it's pathetic, so stop it already.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
The strategic decisions of the US Military should be the sole responsibility of trained military experts--Generals, Admirals, etc.
Not a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks.
Unfortunately the leader of the US Military is not a trained Military Expert. His sole training in things military before accepting his position has been reservist flight training about 50 years ago.
This leader, unlike say, Roosevelt or Bush I, has people who have political goals they are attempting to reach by way of military actions. They only allow Expert Military Advice that agrees with those goals, and saves the presidents reputation. Other military experts who disagree are ignored, removed, retired or lose any chance of promotion.
Americans love their soldiers, and their generals. They do not care if a President goes to war, or runs from war. The one thing that they can not abide is a President who is BAD at war.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am actually chortling, an honest to God Rush Limbaugh chortle. The Democrat party has actually found a way to lose the next election. It is not putting Hillary, whom no married man can actually hear because she triggers the nod and pretend you are listening response with the sound of her voice. Nor is it Barrack Hussein Obama who has been rejected by Muslims (who by Shara Law must kill him for rejecting Islam) and Blacks (for not being a street 'smart' homeboy from the hood) but has the affections of the white middle class for being even whiter then Tiger Woods.
No what they have done is bet against the US Military having operational success. They believe their own rhetoric! They really believe that stuff they say about the armed forces...
Even if Guilliani cannot pull the far right, (pro abortion) he can more then make it up with the Democrats interested in defense who will look at the operational success of this military surge and the condemnation by the Democrat party and candidates and snap, hence my chorttle....and the beauty of it is that when they try to spin it as a failure they will dig themselves in even deeper. I can hear the sweaty conversations now, 'take it easy they have not won yet it can still all go wrong...if we call it temporary, if we call it a lull, if we are patient something will go wrong for us that we can exploit, just wait...damn those troops for making us look bad by being the best at what they do...'
Dude, you really have to research you deity choices a bit.
And yes, making fun of a Presidential candidate's name is the best way of honestly and thoughtfully debating the issues.
That has to be the most sexist, racist, and down right lamest post I've seen at Hatrack in a while.
Then again, the title of this thread is "Shutting Down Debate." What better way to shut down debate than by saying something obnoxiously insulting on an entirely different topic so people forget your losing strategy.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually you only have to be exposed to the Koran and reject it to be a lost cause...(ripe for disposal)
We will revisit this topic, the investment on the Left in defeat, after they start bleeding from it, I will continue to chortle, and fear not the use of hyperbole and humor, as I chortle...
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You know, this is the first time I've ever wanted you to post more, so you'll be banned again more quickly.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
so I can't comment on that portion of your post. I'll look it up.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
