joi Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 506 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 1,922 Content Per Day: 0.41 Reputation: 173 Days Won: 4 Joined: 06/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 A different perspective on the subject of money: http://www.endtimesroundtable.com/ETRT/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15150 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 so the national guards functions is to kill and destroy the citizens it protects? hmm i will keep that mind when i perform my duties and most render assistance to those i need. we also do track nasa and assist with rescue of citizens(coast guard) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 thanks i didnt see you as such a person who was anti-military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 You could use this argument to increase military spending without limit. If the military spending is at 2,3,4 trillion you would still go on about how this is needed to fight terrorist and enemies. There is such thing as spending too much on the military. If you want to fund expensive military sure, but it shouldn't be written on bank account of your children. Fund the military solely from taxes! The currently military strength is an illusion because it is funded on debt. And wars should only be fought when declared by the congress, in agreement with the US constitution, not on the whim of the president as the war in Iraq. I never said I hated the military, you are misinterpreting me yet again. If US haven't been meddling with other country's affairs since after WWII it wouldn't have made that many enemies that require 'policing'. Show me the exact post where I ever said, or even implied I wanted to increase military funding. No, you never specifically said that you hated the military. You didn't need to. When you say things like all they are good for is "destroying people and nations," it isn't that difficult to figure out how you feel about the military. If you want the post number where you said it, I'd be happy to provide it. You don't have a clue about how I feel about anything, except I don't believe in welfare. You, on the other hand, have post after post bad-mouthing the military and slandering them. You also refuse to deal with the fact, once again, you enjoy the freedoms you enjoy because of our military. $2 spent on the miltary would be too much for you. For the record, I have not supported any conflict we have been in since WW II. We did not belong in Korea, or Vietnam, or Grenada, or Somalia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. We need to actively combat terrorism here, on our own soil, not somewhere else. We should not involve ourselves in the politics of Middle Eastern countries such as Syria. I do not support the conflicts, but I still support our military as men and women who are serving their country. I don't share your contempt for them. If US haven't been meddling with other country's affairs since after WWII it wouldn't have made that many enemies that require 'policing'. That is false. Any Islamic nation would have been our enemy as they hate Christianity with a passion and will always attempt to spread their system whether it be through subversion from within, or with the sword. Makes no difference to them. When you have an doing 'pre-emptive' strikes of aggression, that is destroying oppressing and destroy other nations. National defense should be just that, defense, not offensive wars. I disagree with the way the military use, not hating it, don't twist my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 his own staffer, told the world that story a while ago. bush asked the us congress to go to war. unless you are one of those that really thinks the president should wait till congress convenes when we are attacked such as pearl harbor. if we knew early enough that could have been halted then like fdr the next day he went to congress to make his case. so the president must have some lattitude when intellgence says oh crap we have hours to act and need to act! http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/fmr-staffer-ron-paul-planned-no-vote-for-afghanistan-invasion-staff-threatened-mutiny/ It is not the president's place to decided if a war should occur. Do you understand how war should be made according to the US constitution? The reason the US constitution has been so emasculated these days is because people don't hold the government accountable to it. If you want a country that does not operate under the US constitution why not just abandon or change it and not pretend like it is actually following it? Giving the power of making wars to the president is making of a tyrant, as the founding father tried hard to prevent in writing the constitution. Unfortunately it looks like their efforts has failed. Regarding pearl harbor: If war needs to be declared, an emergency session of congress could be convened and it won't take long to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 so the national guards functions is to kill and destroy the citizens it protects? hmm i will keep that mind when i perform my duties and most render assistance to those i need. we also do track nasa and assist with rescue of citizens(coast guard) Did I say anything about national guards? I am talking about the excessive military station in 100+ countries over the world in 1000 bases. Did you not watch the video of this thread about spreading forces too thin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 so if china says has a falling out and it has been told to us via spying they plan to launch a space platform that will be used to kill millions of americans. just sit back and wait? i dont expect isreal to do that nor would i the us. iraq was done on bad intel. isreal's blitzkrieg (the six day war was hardly a defensive posture) they attacked first and stunned the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 so the national guards functions is to kill and destroy the citizens it protects? hmm i will keep that mind when i perform my duties and most render assistance to those i need. we also do track nasa and assist with rescue of citizens(coast guard) Did I say anything about national guards? I am talking about the excessive military station in 100+ countries over the world in 1000 bases. Did you not watch the video of this thread about spreading forces too thin? the national guard is funded by the federal goverment in part. we maintain the gear with federal funding.so when the cuts come for the active side the reserves either take the cut or the slack. ie if they army has to cut mps then the army guard(reserve is all federal) guard then takes the missions. theres no separate secatary of the guard in the pentagon or cabiniet. its called the national guard bureau. i have been at this stuff for some time and im near 21 years and yes these cuts by obama shall i say have already been felt here in my state. i wont go into the details but lets say the chain of command has said trainging for basic solderiing is real tight. ie bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 You could use this argument to increase military spending without limit. If the military spending is at 2,3,4 trillion you would still go on about how this is needed to fight terrorist and enemies. There is such thing as spending too much on the military. If you want to fund expensive military sure, but it shouldn't be written on bank account of your children. Fund the military solely from taxes! The currently military strength is an illusion because it is funded on debt. And wars should only be fought when declared by the congress, in agreement with the US constitution, not on the whim of the president as the war in Iraq. I never said I hated the military, you are misinterpreting me yet again. If US haven't been meddling with other country's affairs since after WWII it wouldn't have made that many enemies that require 'policing'. Show me the exact post where I ever said, or even implied I wanted to increase military funding. No, you never specifically said that you hated the military. You didn't need to. When you say things like all they are good for is "destroying people and nations," it isn't that difficult to figure out how you feel about the military. If you want the post number where you said it, I'd be happy to provide it. You don't have a clue about how I feel about anything, except I don't believe in welfare. You, on the other hand, have post after post bad-mouthing the military and slandering them. You also refuse to deal with the fact, once again, you enjoy the freedoms you enjoy because of our military. $2 spent on the miltary would be too much for you. For the record, I have not supported any conflict we have been in since WW II. We did not belong in Korea, or Vietnam, or Grenada, or Somalia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. We need to actively combat terrorism here, on our own soil, not somewhere else. We should not involve ourselves in the politics of Middle Eastern countries such as Syria. I do not support the conflicts, but I still support our military as men and women who are serving their country. I don't share your contempt for them. If US haven't been meddling with other country's affairs since after WWII it wouldn't have made that many enemies that require 'policing'. That is false. Any Islamic nation would have been our enemy as they hate Christianity with a passion and will always attempt to spread their system whether it be through subversion from within, or with the sword. Makes no difference to them. I don't have contempt for the military. I resent how any cutting in military funding is interpreted as such. Please stop with the "you are this, you are wrong" style of argument and actually put forth facts you purported to have. Putting military personnel in harms way unnecessarily in countries they have no business being is more of a contempt for them as dispensable. I support a defensive military, not an offensive one. There is no need to be condescending here, if you want a civil debate, prove yourself capable of one. Have you consider the cause of why the Islamic nations hated the US? It is not because they hated liberty, freedom (that is just stupid reason that appeal to the masses) or Christianity. It is because they wanted foreign forces off their soil. Is it too much to ask for foreign occupiers off their soil? Just imagine that, foreign forces on US soil, wouldn't you fight them off with all you got? US and middle eastern countries used to be on better terms before the rapid expansion of military presence there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 19, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 19, 2012 Show me the exact post where I ever said, or even implied I wanted to increase military funding. I did not say you wanted to increase military spending. What I did say is that your argument could be use in support of military spending at any level. You would still be using the same argument if the military spending doubles. And any attempt to control that spending would be once again be known as being unpatriotic and 'hating' on the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts