The Fall of America is Coming Soon

[udx]

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.

Then stop using words like "destroying nations and people" when those words are inaccurate and false. This isn't rocket science or neurosurgery. This is not a difficult concept to figure out. Although we did not belong in the countries I mentioned, we certainly did not destroy those countries, nor did we destroy the people within them. If you don't want opposition, then I would suggest you stop trotting out theories that are bogus.

It isn't a difficult fact to find out how many civilians have died from US bombings? How is supporting oppressive dictatorships before their usability ran out not destroying them from within? Which theories are you talking about? Some are opinions some are facts and my opinions are base on publicly available fact. Don't confuse the two. If you want to argue a point, then show me which one you want to talk about.

[udx]

What are you talking about here? Coerce by his staff to do what? Citations please.

Paul is the only candidate that pledge to only go into war after congress has declared it, in agreement with the constitution. Everyone else is content in violating the constitution by going to war when the president see fit, which is the power that makes a tyrant not a elected president.

Your line of reasoning is, once again, bogus. The Congress and the Senate both gave their approval for both conflicts in Iraq. How about Afghanistan?

Approval is still not a declaration. Please read the US constitution in how the proper way war should be conducted. The decision of the US congress was unconstitutional because they abdicated their constitutional responsibility to declare war.

[udx]

I don't have contempt for the military. I resent how any cutting in military funding is interpreted as such. 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.

I am not the one being uncivil. That would be you. Your attitude is 100% condescending, rude, hateful and arrogant. Your behavior is not acceptable, but you'd rather not be called on it. When you say stupid things that are not true, like "destroying countries and nations," I will call you on it. Every single time. So you have a couple of options. You could stop making claims that are not true, or you could resign yourself to receiving fallout for it if you choose to continue doing it. Pretty simple. I notice that while you are busily chastising others for their supposed "uncivil" behavior, you haven't had the personal fortitude or integrity to retract a statement you made which was false.

Islamic nations will oppose any system that is not Islamic. They have been actively doing so for 1380 years. Perhaps you should study the history of Islam to find out exactly what you are dealing with. You display a fundamental misunderstanding about what Islam is about, and how it views any political system outside of it's own.

Sure, denying yourself of something and accusing someone of something many times must make it true.

If you are seeing 100% there must be something wrong your statistical calculations, or you could only see from one angle.

[udx]

Approval is still not a declaration. Please read the US constitution in how the proper way war should be conducted. The decision of the US congress was unconstitutional because they abdicated their constitutional responsibility to declare war.

Your line of reasoning has still not explained how any of it is the military's fault. Blame the government. You are using the military as a scapegoat.

I was addressing your previous post regarding whether Congressional approval is sufficient for war, and the answer is no it isn't. Don't mix argument into different subjects, it confused matters.

I didn't say it is the military's fault. Yes it is also a foreign policy issue. If it wasn't a foreign policy to be able to fight two wars at a time and be in control of every location on Earth, we wouldn't have to spend this much money on foreign soil and actually secure 'National' boarders.

[udx]

It isn't a difficult fact to find out how many civilians have died from US bombings? How is supporting oppressive dictatorships before their usability ran out not destroying them from within? Which theories are you talking about? Some are opinions some are facts and my opinions are base on publicly available fact. Don't confuse the two. If you want to argue a point, then show me which one you want to talk about.

Everything you wrote above displays a problem that is not the U.S. military. The problems you describe above are valid problems, but have nothing to do with the military. The problems you describe are caused by a really bad American foreign policy, not the military. Blame the right people. The government, not the military. The military is not sitting around bored, with time on their hands and suddenly says "Let's go topple an oppressive dictatorship!" The military doesn't do anything without someone telling them what to do. Do you hold the government accountable for these things?

When I say military, I am implying what the US govt does with its military, not what the military does on its own accord (but that is an unwieldy phrase to use) . It is well understood that a normal military unit follow command from the government (at least it should), so why would you be thinking I'm talking about military doing things on its own, of course I'm talking about what the US govt does with its military.

If you have sensitive ears regarding the use of the term military, what term you recommend me to use in place of?

[jasoncran]

securing the national borders wont be cheap nor will it save money. but its the function of the goverment.

my premise why is this. the military cant be used to arrest aliens or citizens per the commidus posse act. so therefore either ice or border patrol would have to arrest and detain. yes it is true that the military can detain but we cant hold nor charge the suspects like the civilian law can. so that means double the bodies. then once arrested then they must be held till sentence and also fed and once sentenced in prisons.

we already have another force that can do such a thing and its being put to work its called the dod police.

[~candice~]

I have admitted to, and apologized for poor behavior on this board many times. I have the personal integrity to do that. You do not. You do not have the integrity or humility to admit when you are wrong. It is that simple. Your behavior is poor, and trying to focus on someone else will not accomplish your goal of diverting attention away from your poor behavior. You've made a false statement and it is still hanging out there for you to retract. Any thoughts as to when that is going to happen?

You continue to blame the military for things that the U.S. government does. There is a distinction there that you seem either unwilling, or perhaps unable to make.

Now, do you want to talk about the entirety of the problem with this country's economy, or just keep harping on the military?

To be fair, he has clarified...

When I say military, I am implying what the US govt does with its military, not what the military does on its own accord (but that is an unwieldy phrase to use) . It is well understood that a normal military unit follow command from the government (at least it should), so why would you be thinking I'm talking about military doing things on its own, of course I'm talking about what the US govt does with its military.

If you have sensitive ears regarding the use of the term military, what term you recommend me to use in place of?

[udx]

Sure, denying yourself of something and accusing someone of something many times must make it true.

If you are seeing 100% there must be something wrong your statistical calculations, or you could only see from one angle.

I have admitted to, and apologized for poor behavior on this board many times. I have the personal integrity to do that. You do not. You do not have the integrity or humility to admit when you are wrong. It is that simple. Your behavior is poor, and trying to focus on someone else will not accomplish your goal of diverting attention away from your poor behavior. You've made a false statement and it is still hanging out there for you to retract. Any thoughts as to when that is going to happen?

You continue to blame the military for things that the U.S. government does. There is a distinction there that you seem either unwilling, or perhaps unable to make.

Now, do you want to talk about the entirety of the problem with this country's economy, or just keep harping on the military?

Once again you are assuming what I am and what I am not. You claim that nobody can know what you are, sound fair, i'll give you that. Yet you claim to know exactly who I am without shadow of debt (a bit judgmental aren't we?). That seems pretty unfair don't you think? If that is not arrogance I don't know what you would use to describe it.

It is pretty shocking to me that you could get so work up about a simple conclusion I have made. Unable to provided any substantial claims to counter my argument (if you have, please re quote it, i have trouble finding your reasons in the midst of all the name calling), then resort to personal attacks. It is not the first that I experience this kind of attitude, I'm use to it. People who actually reason the argument come few and far between.

What exactly is this poor behavior you speak of. If you really have issue and your points are valid I would correct it. But I have not seen you made a valid point, just generalizations. You seem to like to use '100%' a lot, saw you use this term in another post. Are you using that term for emphasis or literally? What sample size do you base that 100% on?

List all statements that you classified as poor behavior and their context. I welcome you to call me what I am provided that you can back up the claim. Please list the statement that you find "condescending, rude, hateful and arrogant" and the reasons behind it. Classify each statement according to what you find them. You could humor me with what percentage each statement classify into if you want (knowing you, it would probably be 100% each). I genuinely want to know how I can be so offensive so quickly.

I'll be glad to clear it up each one for you.

[udx]

You continue to blame the military for things that the U.S. government does. There is a distinction there that you seem either unwilling, or perhaps unable to make.

Read Candice's post, I'm glad at least someone on this thread could understand an obvious statement. You keep making false claims of what I have said, when are you going to own up to it?

Now, do you want to talk about the entirety of the problem with this country's economy, or just keep harping on the military?

Straw man attacks is not effective at proving your point, nor further the discussion.

I have said many times before. I did not say the country's problem is entirely due to military spending, but it sure is a contributing factor. I can not make this any clearer for you. But if you cannot understand my obvious respond to your first accusation, there is little hope I can help you understand anything else.

Do you know how a debate works? You talk about a subject and both sides bring evidence support and not support it and not twist the argument into something else entirely?

For example. When a doctor specialist, say a cardiologist says there is something wrong with you heart. Do you automatically assume everything else is fine with the rest of your body? No you don't, and shouldn't. But he made his conclusion base on what he sees as valid evidence to prove one point. You could have many other problems with your body that he will discuss with you in another session, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist,

On the same token, I limited my discussion to why I think military spending is a problem. But that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with anything else. A focus discussion require a focused topic. Sure there are many problem big or small with other part of the country but that doesn't suddenly make the first problem disappear.

[udx]

Now, do you want to talk about the entirety of the problem with this country's economy, or just keep harping on the military?

When you discuss a specific issue, does generalizing it into something extremely large and unmanageable help the discussion the topic at hand?

It is impossible to talk about a country's economy as a whole without writing a whole library worth of books, nobody in the right mind would attempt to accomplish that. You break down discussion into individual topics that are more manageable.