Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
The foundation of our Constitution and our country is individualism not collectivism.Funny Everytime I hear the Phrase "states rights" it is always at the expense of some groups rights that are protected federally.
The foundation of our Constitution and our country is individualism not collectivism.Funny Everytime I hear the Phrase "states rights" it is always at the expense of some groups rights that are protected federally.
Well put, I had to go in depth but your point about the idea of having the government decide what's moral is what I was aiming at.Yes he does have a problem against it and has said so many times. He says it is not the role of government to force their sense of morality since government is not moral. It is the role of society.
He is very consistent. You do not know the foundation of the Constitution so why comment? Illegals sneak into this country 8 months pregnant and get rewarded with welfare when they give birth. They do not come here for the citizenship, they come for the entitlements. No one should profit from an illegal act.
I wouldn't bring the troops home for a number of reasons: One, Iran is chomping at the bit for the US to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan to try and assert dominance over the region. This is a direct conflict of interest to the other major players in the region (the Saudis, Israel, Turkey) which are of much more strategic value than Iran. It has been the US presence in the Persian Gulf since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (Which killed the idea of Pan-Arabism) and the fall of the Soviet Union that has kept Iran in check. If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. A disastrous result IMO. Given the two-decade propensity for Iran to resort to supporting terror tactics, this is something that just cannot be afforded at this time. We cant have a regional hegemon that openly advocates terrorists attacks against ANYONE period. A US presence in Iraq keeps the Iranians at bey, which will be needed for overall stability in the region. Also, if Iran is left to assume the power vaccum, this will undoubtedly press Israel to ramp-up any defensive posturing it feels necessary to take, which have already been difficult enough to constrain.This is true, problem is you cannot expect everyone to be level headed and not racist, there will always be racists, unfortunately that's a sad fact of humanity, so either you have the government force people to hide their racism which drive them to usually resort to stuff like the KKK and the skinheads OR you let those people decided who they want to allow in their businesses and they will most likely go out of business because I know I for one wouldn't support any business that doesn't allow or treat minorities equally and I believe on top of loosing business from the people they turned away they would also loose business from the disgust of people who don't support such racist agendas, therefore I believe the whole "racist" partisan of Americans would slowly die out and shrivel up into a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population.
I assume you where referring the allowing people who are racist to turn away people of certain minorities. And this doesn't just apply to whitey turning away the "chink", it can also mean that in other people of other race could freely turn away "whitey" if they so felt inclined. BUT overall I believe (at least hope) that in this day and age most all of America doesn't view people for skin color or origin but for their views and beliefs as a person.
This is a controversial issue but when it comes down to brass tacks there will always be a ever so small numbers of racists, it's just a matter of either having the government try to tell them how to live or letting the people psu h them out as I know you couldn't run a very successful business if you were blatantly racist.
What I find appalling is why people don't discuss and debate policies of the big wig candidates such as Romney and Perry so passionately....
Please enlighten me, I here to be as level and polite as I can if I receive the same, I don't ask for you to jump in joy and suddenly agree with me but I want to see the arguments here. I will very much so like to discuss why you wouldn't support bringing our troops home; that issues being the first one I mentioned and for me the most important for America's economy and safety.
You know the Great thing about the USA as a Vet I Proudly served with many of those "anchor Babies". And a point of fact which You skip over is. ILLEGALS pay more into the system then they get out of itYes he does have a problem against it and has said so many times. He says it is not the role of government to force their sense of morality since government is not moral. It is the role of society.
He is very consistent. You do not know the foundation of the Constitution so why comment? Illegals sneak into this country 8 months pregnant and get rewarded with welfare when they give birth. They do not come here for the citizenship, they come for the entitlements. No one should profit from an illegal act.
I disagree with you to a point.I wouldn't bring the troops home for a number of reasons: One, Iran is chomping at the bit for the US to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan to try and assert dominance over the region. This is a direct conflict of interest to the other major players in the region (the Saudis, Israel, Turkey) which are of much more strategic value than Iran. It has been the US presence in the Persian Gulf since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (Which killed the idea of Pan-Arabism) and the fall of the Soviet Union that has kept Iran in check. If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. A disastrous result IMO. Given the two-decade propensity for Iran to resort to supporting terror tactics, this is something that just cannot be afforded at this time. We cant have a regional hegemon that openly advocates terrorists attacks against ANYONE period. A US presence in Iraq keeps the Iranians at bey, which will be needed for overall stability in the region. Also, if Iran is left to assume the power vaccum, this will undoubtedly press Israel to ramp-up any defensive posturing it feels necessary to take, which have already been difficult enough to constrain.
As for the effect of economy, we absolutely positively must retain a strong enough contingent to secure the flow of oil through the region. This will only be guarenteed by a continual US presence in the region. At this point the region is far too unstable to merit any sort of credibility on behalf of the region to secure this dynamic. The US is like a baby-sitter in the Near East, we are a force of balance and rationality to ambitious leaders of the region. They know that oil is the stranglehold of the modern world, I dont think anyone on a position to form US policy would be willing to leave that part of the world economy equation to chance by vacating the region and hoping for the best. There is too much at stake to take a chance on idealism.
Better to head off the making of the megalomaniacal decision making of a "Supreme Leader" in the U.S.If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran.
I understand you point and agree it's a volatile system but it's not our job!! A US presence anywhere gets US troops dead with no real result except for our leaders saying "Ohh we are stopping something that COULD happen" it's like arresting someone before they killed someone saying "he was going to kill them and so he's getting charged with murder".I wouldn't bring the troops home for a number of reasons: One, Iran is chomping at the bit for the US to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan to try and assert dominance over the region. This is a direct conflict of interest to the other major players in the region (the Saudis, Israel, Turkey) which are of much more strategic value than Iran. It has been the US presence in the Persian Gulf since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (Which killed the idea of Pan-Arabism) and the fall of the Soviet Union that has kept Iran in check. If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. A disastrous result IMO. Given the two-decade propensity for Iran to resort to supporting terror tactics, this is something that just cannot be afforded at this time. We cant have a regional hegemon that openly advocates terrorists attacks against ANYONE period. A US presence in Iraq keeps the Iranians at bey, which will be needed for overall stability in the region. Also, if Iran is left to assume the power vaccum, this will undoubtedly press Israel to ramp-up any defensive posturing it feels necessary to take, which have already been difficult enough to constrain.
As for the effect of economy, we absolutely positively must retain a strong enough contingent to secure the flow of oil through the region. This will only be guarenteed by a continual US presence in the region. At this point the region is far too unstable to merit any sort of credibility on behalf of the region to secure this dynamic. The US is like a baby-sitter in the Near East, we are a force of balance and rationality to ambitious leaders of the region. They know that oil is the stranglehold of the modern world, I dont think anyone on a position to form US policy would be willing to leave that part of the world economy equation to chance by vacating the region and hoping for the best. There is too much at stake to take a chance on idealism.
There is no megalomaniac decision making of a "supreme leader" in the US, it simply does not exist. Even hinting at that notion destroys the idea of the "Elite ruling cabal."Better to head off the making of the megalomaniacal decision making of a "Supreme Leader" in the U.S.
I counter that Iran already has a strong Shia contingent within Iraqi Parliment which I believe controls something like 2/3 already. Turkery, of course, but militarily, Turkey is in no position to get it's hands dirty, and just cannot possibly project an effective force past their own borders. They are more diplomatically gifted in terms of positioning.
As far as Saddam and Kuwait, I don't necessarily see where he "asked" the US about anything. We didn't betray Hussein, if anyone did it was Hussein himself marginalizing himself amongst his peers. I do agree however, that we have eliminated the biggest obstacle to Iranian hegemony.
It is our job, if we want to continue the way of life that we have here in the US (the high standard of living), it is imperative that we continue to pursue the unipolar world.I understand you point and agree it's a volatile system but it's not our job!! A US presence anywhere gets US troops dead with no real result except for our leaders saying "Ohh we are stopping something that COULD happen" it's like arresting someone before they killed someone saying "he was going to kill them and so he's getting charged with murder".
How is the US supposed to be a force of "balance and rationality" when we can't even manage our own country?!
If this "leader" is such a threat to the US how come we can't simply have the CIA take him out covertly? This may not agree with the ideal of Ron Paul but I believe the US could take out tyrants who ravage their nation and people, but we have NO say in how to run other people's countries. Also, since when does Iran have any sort of formidable military?
As for the oil, The middle East actually only supplies about 1/3 of our oil and the countries that contribute the most have enough money to which they are somewhat secure from the "rule of an unchecked Iran", and even then the USA has plenty of oil to more than replace what we get from the middle East, while we can drill our own oil for now our ultimate goal SHOULD be to convert to electric vehicles because the technology is their and untapped, and don't try to call me on this on, I've spent an entire year building and electric vehicle and learning all the ins and outs of the system and the business. Their is enough free energy available from the wind, sun, and water to power America many times over.
As Correct as you are in the current state of affairs. You sound like a neo Con. We need to get off of OIL.It is our job, if we want to continue the way of life that we have here in the US (the high standard of living), it is imperative that we continue to pursue the unipolar world.
The US by its very nature is a balance of power to the rest of the world. Our military and economy are by and large the most powerful the world has ever seen - that's a tough cookie to crack.
Well, 75% of the worlds oil goes through Iranian waters, I wouldn't leave them the keys - and neither would the rest of the world. As for the idea that we "ha(ve) plenty of oil" I am unaware as to your sources for that idea. As for electric vehicles, where is that energy going to come from when 40% of our electricity is generated by OIL. As for the "alternative" sources, that is something that is ambitious, idealist, and unrealistic under the current conditions. It's not about "what ifs" its about WHAT IS.
That doesn't sound like asking...One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:
“We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?”Later the transcript has Glaspie saying:
“We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.That doesn't sound like asking...
It won't happen as quickly as anyone would like, and we cant change that.As Correct as you are in the current state of affairs. You sound like a neo Con. We need to get off of OIL.
"It is over," Glaspie said. "Nobody wants to take the blame. I am quite happy to take the blame. Perhaps I was not able to make Saddam Hussein believe that we would do what we said we would do, but in all honesty, I don't think anybody in the world could have persuaded him."We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Unfortunatly your assessment is correctIt won't happen as quickly as anyone would like, and we cant change that.
I'm not a neo-con by any means. Just, a realist.
It is our job, if we want to continue the way of life that we have here in the US (the high standard of living), it is imperative that we continue to pursue the unipolar world.
The US by its very nature is a balance of power to the rest of the world. Our military and economy are by and large the most powerful the world has ever seen - that's a tough cookie to crack.