Let's Talk About Our Country

[Father Time]

[quote=Outriderdark]Father Time...ya know, Muslims have beards.....and you have a beard....I'm just sayin'. <squints suspiciously>
[/QUOTE

Yeah, but muslims don't drink! I guess that leaves me out.

[Outriderdark]

There's a good way to weed out the undesirables...throw a kegger and see who sits in the corner.

[FutureMarine]

I know i wont resemble a muslim when i am old enough to drink, because no muslim will be drinking Steel Reserve 211, Olde English, or Cobra:cheer:

[FutureMarine]

Originally Posted by troy2000

...up to a point. I was just trying to make sure you keep a little perspective.
And after a lifetime of being a big brother, favorite uncle, father and foster parent, I'll lecture a young'un at the drop of a hat. Thanks for taking it so politely.

Well after a life time of being a youngeste son, and tag along brother, i am used to being lectured at the drop of a hat!!!!:nod:

[troy2000]

Dennis, why do you keep insisting that the entire Muslim world is responsible for what a handful of fanatics is doing, and should pay the price?

People have said repeatedly in the last few days that all Muslims don't think like the radical terrorists, and that their brand of religion is a perversion of mainstream Muslim beliefs, and you keep blowing them off. It would be nice to see you at least address the point, instead of posting yet another genocidal rant...

[Dennis]

Dont believe it Troy, they are all together
WE must treat them as such
they are depending on us to not to.
They know that it is unacceptable to "paint with a broad brush" here in America.
It isnt that way over there.
Hey, Dont believe me,
Go there,
Take your family and go, move to,.............
Pick any large islamic city (except Toronto)
Say Istanbul
Go, move there, get a job there, live there,
Do you Really believe that there would be Any acceptance of you there?
they would eventually run you off or kill ya.

I am going on my experiences I have had with Muslim people.
all the ones that I have ever met want to distance themselves from the way all the islamic countrys are thinking.
the primitive tribalistic thought processes are the way it is over there.

My main point Again
Is that we NEED to define our enemy
Both at home and overseas.
If this doesnt happen our decline will only continue to get worse.
This really shakes people up, because it is the only path to absolute Victory.
What else can we Do?
Quit?
Bring the troops home ?
Capitulate?

That is what all the anti War protesters are protesting FOR
all the concentration on how many troops we have lost,
All the concentration on how "bad" Bush is (evidence to the contrary)
This is HELPING the Enemy that will Kill us with Happy Abandon.
We all need to shut up and Fight the WAR
and together we MAY achieve Victory.

Now, how remote are the chances of that happening?
I would say that the chances of our nation Uniting and fighting the war as a unified country are just about zero.
this is Reguardless of what the war is about.

THAT is the lump of truth that is hard to swallow.

The Muslims Terrorists are counting on it.
they Know we Wont Do What MUST be done to achieve victory.
and if we aint winnin, we be loosin.

So, How would You WIN the War?
The Enemy doesnt know the words to Kum By Yaaa.

[Rave]

:jaw:

[Beer Forever]

Dennis,

I find that odd. When I visited Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey 3 years ago I was excepted into people's homes and ate dinner with them. I stayed with a nice family for 3 weeks and was considered part of their family. THey let me eat their food, drink their water, and share stories. I have had great experiences with Muslims and I am Jewish. Only a small percent of them are extremist and they are the ones who give all Muslims a bad name.

[Beer Forever]

It is naive to think so broad. We have moved past that. Remember segregation?? Not all of any race in one way or another. People do have independent minds and are capable of thinking for themselves. It is always a select few that ruin it for eversyone, but those select few are insane, like some people on this very forum.

[Ctwo]

Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
Mathaba Net | January 9 2006

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.

It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."

This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us

Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."

What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?

This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?

It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.

Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."

[Beer Forever]

That is down right scary. Imagine Bush with unlimited power. I am moving to Canada.:jaw:

[troy2000]

Quite frankly Dennis, you scare me more than the Muslims do.

[FutureMarine]

We do need to define our enemies, but we must define our enemies correctly. The ones who are trying to break this country MUST be killed.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by FutureMarine

We do need to define our enemies, but we must define our enemies correctly. The ones who are trying to break this country MUST be killed.

But we need to properly (and narrowly) define our enemies. If we take on the whole world, we'll lose.

[Outriderdark]

Excellent point. Some seem to think we can defeat the entire world. While we may have the advantage over every other individual nation on earth, we couldn't win in a war where WE were the modern day Nazi Germany and the rest of the world was our enemy.

[Father Time]

Also, just because you can do something doesn't always mean that it's a good idea. No one has mentioned the environmental havoc that a twenty-first century war with chemical, biological and radiological weapons would cause.

[FutureMarine]

Originally Posted by troy2000

But we need to properly (and narrowly) define our enemies. If we take on the whole world, we'll lose.

And i agree, we would gain nothing in taking on the world

[FutureMarine]

Originally Posted by Father Time

Also, just because you can do something doesn't always mean that it's a good idea. No one has mentioned the environmental havoc that a twenty-first century war with chemical, biological and radiological weapons would cause.

I think that there would have to be a totally reasonable threat to us and we would have to be positive they will be using nuclear weapons on us for America to start using nukes on those(and i am not reffering to any specific people, ANYONE)

[Outriderdark]

The world would not tolerate us using nuclear weapons unilaterally. We'd end up in a cloud ourselves.
We've been pretty good at avoiding nuclear war for the past 60 years and I think with diligence we can do it into the future until the world wises up and gets rid of the abominable things. I see nuclear weapons as the greatest folly man has ever conceived.
Even Hitler's generals didn't deploy the Sarin gas that may have turned back the Allied invasion of Europe for fear of the devastation for both sides AND the fear that we would gas them in return (we had stockpiles ready in the event Hitler deployed his chemical weapons) or deploy a new "super bomb" (which they didn't know wasn't ready yet).

[Dennis]

You are right And wrong at the same time.
We Must start dictating the terms of the War
NOT the other way around.
If we act deciseively you would be amazed at how fast nations would get off the fence.
Quadaffy gave up his Nuclear program because he knew We where coming

The Muslims, AND the rest of the world KNOW that our will has run out and we will soon be leaving the Gulf never to return.
all they have to do is stay in the headlines for a few more years kill a very few soldiers every week and we will eventually fold like a paper plate.
I cant stand that, it enrages every fiber in my soul,
They are counting on it.
laughing as they plan their plans.
See, THEY have something to Believe in. their Reliegion
We used to be able to expect most citizens to at least believe in our country
now, less than a third, with a big middle that can go either way
The unrelenting "America Bad" propaganda that we live under from the moment we begin to learn anything to the day we die.
the gross manipulation of everyones attention.
is working.
The fact that so many Americans have a learned hatred of their own country
and allways find something to complain about with nothing to replace what they want to teardown.
I can go on and on.
The only action that could resolve this issue would be a instantanious act that nutralized the majority of the muslims that have been tought to hate us, By us, in the first place.

dont worry, It aint gonna happen.
We aint gonna nuke the Muslims
No one around here is that smart.
the comeing economic depression caused by the manipulation of energy by the Muslims will be the big issue in this new century.
and allways Following a world wide Economic Depression....
A REAL world WAR.
I think it is enevidable.

But look on the bright side