The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@joelforcongressdistrict53, supposedly obamacare was passed as a tax. This was done to sidestep Our Constitution and force this train wreck on us. Having said that, one must assume that like any other tax the government levies on us, if we do not pay it, we are subject to fines and penalties.

This administration is different than any other I can remember, they deal in bullying, sabotage, and threats. You will do as you are told or the government will take action to make you fall in line. Never thought I would see anything like this in America.

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

@jlriggs57aol-com, Bullying? Sabotage? Threats? How so?

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@keeperisme, I’ll give you the short list and will expand on it if you need me too. He had the IRS investigate Conservative groups like the Tea Party and had his agents intimidate their members. Then held their tax free status and tried to charge them tons of money in taxes. When he was campaigning he said he would a spirit of cooperation to the white house, yet told republicans he would not negotiate on debt ceiling. Bullying.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/20/obamas-fingerpints-all-over-irs-tea-party-scandal/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/16/us-usa-economy-obama-idUSBRE98F0OA20130916

obama and his staff knew what was going to happen in Benghazi months before it happened. He could have had extra personnel there to defeat the attackers or he could have gotten them out. His administration taking guns into Mexico then blaming it on legitimate gun dealers in the U.S. A feeble attempt to discredit American gun dealers to further his attempts at gun “regulation”. I guess I should have said “attempted sabotage” for fast and furious. But you get the point.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/25/benghazi-obamas-actions-amount-to-a-shameful-dereliction-of-duty/

http://www.westernjournalism.com/proof-obama-knew-about-fast-and-furious-in-march-2009/

Telling Americans that now that obamacare has passed they WILL buy it or they WILL be fined. if that isn’t a threat I don’t know what is. I don’t need to post a link for this one you already know it.

Now here’s the problem most of these links go to conservative sites. The plain and simple truth is that the mainstream media or liberal media will not say one thing against him. That should bother anyone. When an entire media will not say one bad thing about a president, excepting Fox, something is just not right. They beat the crap out of Bush on a daily basis, some of it he earned. But doesn’t it seem odd to anyone else that obama who is human, I assume, can’t make a mistake or an error that would be reported on the mainstream media. Oh, they talk about the failings of the healthcare website, but nothing directly pointed at obama himself. Nobody is that perfect. Something is fishy.

Sorry, my mind got stuck on that.

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

About the IRS scandal, it was only asked if Conservative groups were screened, which they were. What wasn’t asked is if liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status received the same treatment, which they did. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/irs-targeting/index.html).

In many states, it is required to have car insurance. I don’t hear you calling that a threat by the states. What makes the same thing, but with health insurance, any different, especially when you consider the fact that medical care can easily be as expensive as new brakes or a transmission?

Benghazi was a tragedy. It truly was. But the events that occurred weren’t as predictable as you claim. While “The black flag of al-queda” may mean al-queda is in the area, that doesn’t guarantee an attack anytime soon. Its not like they had rock solid intelligence that “al-queda will attack the US consulate at X:XX on X/XX”. While it is still a gamble, it isn’t the intentional sabotage and subsequent slaughter of Americans you make it out to be.

I have no idea where you got “discrediting American gun dealers” from a video about limiting illegal gun trafficking into mexico. The video spoke of tracing guns across the border in order to see who sold them to the cartels. I see no issue with that, and those who sold the guns deserve to be discredited.

I believe the media is easier on Obama because he is 1.) The first black president, 2.) The media isn’t particularly kind towards those from Texas, like Bush is, and 3.) Bush started two wars, which have sent many of our soldiers to their deaths. The media isn’t very kind to those who start pointless wars, and Texans, let alone a pointless-war starting Texan.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@keeperisme

Jack:

Your facts might be in error.

IRS Scandal: “In a letter sent late Wednesday and released Thursday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George said that just 30 percent of groups with the word “progressive” in their name were put through special scrutiny for tax-exempt applications, but 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their name were subjected to invasive questioning.”

“TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 time frame we audited,” Mr. George said.”

washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/?page=all

Car insurance: There is not a single state in this union that requires you as a person to purchase car insurance. As far as health insurance there once was a law that required you as a person to purchase health insurance but the United States Supreme Court struck that down.

Benghazi: There isn’t much you can say for sure about how terrorists act except that they will do whatever is in their own best interest, because really they’re accountable to nobody. One thing we do know about terrorists, because this has been true throughout history, is that they honor anniversaries of attacks with more attacks. This made 9/11/12 an especially dangerous time. We also know that Libya was an especially dangerous place because of known and increasing terrorist activity there.

It is true that you cannot guarantee the timing of an attack by your enemy. It is known and has been known for centuries that best time to attack your enemy is when he is not expecting an attack (Pearl Harbor is one of many examples). We also know that if you have an inferior force, surprise attacks and asymmetrical warfare are your best tactics. These are tactics by which the terrorists survive and since we are their favorite target we should probably know and be ready for this.

As for intelligence, we had “rock-solid” intelligence that terrorists wanted to attack the United States and its interests around the world and given the opportunity that is exactly what they would do. Defending this country is NEVER a gamble, it is a solemn duty of the President of the United States. ALL presidents have taken this seriously, except for Barack Obama.

We were at war, Libya is where the terrorists were amassing, that date was very significant, our facilities were insufficiently protected even after pleas by the Ambassador for more security. We were subsequently attacked. Did this catch us off guard? No, it didn’t catch us off guard; it caught us not giving a damn about the security of our country.

Had we tried to defend our ambassador and the others would there be a guarantee that they would not have been killed anyway? No. As bad as that is, look beyond that and ask yourself “did we do ANYTHING to defend our country when we were attacked?” NO WE DID NOT.

That, in my opinion was the single most treasonous move made by the commander-in-chief. To spell it out for you, the enemy attacked us and the very act of NOT EVEN TRYING TO DEFEND our nation is, by some accounts “giving aid to the enemy” and by none other than our commander-in-chief. If you are an American please have the self-respect to not defend those treasonous actions.

Blaming gun dealers: It was the federal government, under the supervision, or total incompetency of the Attorney General, who implemented the program to illegally smuggle guns into Mexico. If it can be proven that the gun dealers knowingly sold guns to those who could not legally purchase them then they should be prosecuted (we don’t know if that was the case and in many cases it was not the case).

However, we DO KNOW that the Justice Department illegally provided cover for this to happen. We do know that the Attorney General and his ilk illegally covered up this operation and kept it from congressional oversight and investigation. By the way, the U.S. Attorney General was found in contempt of Congress for his part in the cover-up and that is only for starters.

And sadly we have at least one dead American to show for our Attorney General sanctioned illegal actions. If you are an American please don’t try to defend these anti-American actions either.

Your last paragraph: the media is easier on Obama and one reason is because he is black. What has that got to do with anything? Shouldn’t the media be doing their job and not being worried about being biased? I don’t care if he is blue, is he a good president or not?

You can’t give a bad president a pass just because he is blue and you can’t give a bad president a pass just because he is black. All things equal, I would just as soon have a media that wants to do their job instead of a media that covers up for incompetent people.

The media isn’t kind toward those from Texas? BIG DEAL. I don’t care if they are “kind” toward anyone as long as they conduct their business with respect towards others. Isn’t Texas part of the United States?

Bush started two wars? BULL. You probably forgot because the media you just mentioned probably presented you with slanted or biased news, but we were attacked on 9/11/01 and we lost nearly 3,000 innocent Americans in our own streets. How can you blindly state that Bush started two wars if you know that? If that was before you were born all you had to do is ask someone who lived through that time (preferably not the biased media though).

How about the second war to which you refer? Iraq, I suppose. President Bill Clinton made it official United States policy to seek regime change in Iraq. In case you forgot, Clinton was president before GWB. This was not a mandate but an official goal and as such was to be acted upon when and if the time was right. The only thing that is left to argue is the time. You can debate all you want whether the time was right but the cause was ALWAYS right.

In case you forget, Iraq had committed MANY acts of war against the United States, every one of which gave us LEGAL reason. Completely separate from that, you probably forgot that Saddam Hussein was actively supporting and exporting terrorism and that by itself gave us all the legal reason we needed. Completely separate from that was the WMD issue and the fact that international intel overwhelmingly stated that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and a WMD program.

Need I remind you that by definition, a weapon of mass destruction has the capability to destroy and kill hundreds of thousands and even millions of American lives (just one, and yes we did in fact find WMDs in Iraq).

Now, if you are the president of the United States and constitutionally charged as the sole person (meaning the top person, not only person) responsible for the national security of this country and personal guarantor of the protection of the rights and freedoms of all Americans, just how much of a chance of those WMDs falling into the wrong hands and being used against Americans are you willing to take? The ONLY correct answer is NONE. YOU DON’T TAKE THAT CHANCE, EVER!

So what did GWB do (since you seem to know so much anti American stuff)? He made it clear, through the State Department (political arm of the United States) and through the United Nations that we, and the world, demand that the United Nations Weapons Inspectors be allowed back in to finish their United Nations mandated inspection job of inspecting and proving the existence OR non-existence of suspected WMDs.

Meanwhile, the French had been violating the oil-for-food program (which was a United Nations program, not a United States program) by trading non-United Nations sanctioned goods (like food and medicine) to Saddam Hussein in exchange for oil. The French (our supposed allies) were subverting the United Nations, and subsequently the United States and illegally violating the oil-for-food program.

The only reason this is important is that Saddam Hussein knew he could not stand militarily against the United States and allies, other than France. Saddam Hussein would have backed down because he knew a war with the United States would include his death, unlike Desert Storm when killing Saddam Hussein was not a stated goal of ours.

To make a long story short, the French convinced Saddam Hussein that the United States would not attack. Knowing that the United States would not attack, Saddam refused to allow the United Nations Weapons inspectors back in to his country to verify the status of suspected WMDs. Saddam Hussein was told by the French that we were bluffing.

Unbeknownst to Saddam Hussein, we were serious about the national security of the United States (not so much anymore though with Obama at the controls). In case you miss my point here it is: While I do not place 100% of the blame for the Iraq war on the French (nearly all of it goes to Saddam Hussein), had it not been for the illegal interference by the French, it is my firm belief that Saddam Hussein would have decided to allow the U.N. weapons inspectors in to inspect without interference. Having not found WMDs, (they did exist but the inspectors would never have found them), the United States would have had no choice but to re-deploy troops back home and the war would never have been fought. The upside to that is phenomenal. The ONLY downside to that is that Saddam Hussein would still be alive.

Sorry, but I took a long way around just to get to the point where I could ask you this question: “who started the Iraq War?” We already know that GWB DID NOT START the war in Afghanistan and now we know that he did not start the war in Iraq either. George W Bush defended a country not once but twice and because of his actions you are still free. You can legitimately debate HOW those wars were fought but what is NOT open for debate is the legitimacy, or cause, of either of them.

Pointless wars? Is that what you think? It is clear that we did not start either of these wars but it is also clear that when we were attacked, and also when the threat of attack was of the size that no country CAN EVER tolerate (WMDs can kill millions), we rose to the defense of our freedoms, just as ALL patriotic Americans have done in the past. If you are a free person you might thank a veteran, many of whom died for you (just a suggestion, being grateful for your freedom is not required by any law).

Every war that I can think of in recent history, we either stayed out of, OR we were dragged into. Sometimes as a nation you just have to defend yourself even if people like you don’t want to and would rather surrender to our enemy (any of them).

There is one exception and that is our participation in the war in Libya in 2011. We got involved in that war when there was NO NATIONAL SECURITY REASON TO DO SO. This was the first illegal war I can think of.

A couple quick interesting points on our 2011 bombing in Libya to quell an internal civil war in a sovereign nation; one that was no threat to us. When you drop bombs, even GPS guided “smart” bombs, people die. Such is the nature of warfare and you do whatever you have to do to defend our country.

As much as it sucks to have civilian casualties, that is also the nature of war and you do what you have to do to defend our country. If you drop bombs when there is no threat to our country you have just entered an illegal war. If you kill people in the process, which always happens in war, there is no other word than “murder.” I refuse to label those in uniform as “murderers” if people died in that war. But I can’t say much about the person who ordered that murder.

As you probably know (at least I hope you pay attention to current events if you vote), Qaddafi was killed in that war by one of his own people. Had it not been for the interference of the United States this probably would not have happened. Qaddafi, as much as folks liked to hate him, as head of state, he was responsible for the weapons in and under his command.

Take out the Libyan commander (Qaddafi) and what happens to those weapons? They now belong to whoever wants to take them, and who do you suppose that might be? If even one of those weapons was used in the attack on the United States and our ambassador in Benghazi, same country, the following year, well I guess that makes a terrible thing even worse. Can you say impeachment?

To add insult to stupidity, had it not been for the interference of Vladimir Putin we would have been involved in the war in Syria and that would have been the second illegal war in recent times (only this time it would cost us far more than our integrity). I am not a fan of Putin but I will accept the right answer, no matter the source.

Other than the blatant errors in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth paragraph, that was an interesting post!

Having only five paragraphs wrong in a five paragraph post ain’t bad… is it?

Profile photo of Jack Felter
Jack Felter @sitandthink

I’m not for Obamacare, but to see that it’s wrong you have to understand the reasoning behind the system. I mean the system(s) that existed more than a few years ago. Fundamentally, Obamacare is wrong because they’re taking over a part of the private sector (1/6) and saying they’re in charge now. Essentially, the health insurance people will continue operating the same, it’s just that whichever corrupt politicians get elected are now the CEO and board of directors. “That’s not bad” you say “It doesn’t have to be that bad”. But the question that needs to be asked is “Why do we need it?”. I don’t think that Obamacare is good even by liberal standards because we will be worse off a few years, not decades, after this is implemented. You imagine that we will just be able to absorb the cost of the millions that will be added, and the truth is, we will. But with less and less money every year, and increasing government fat, can’t you see just a little being sacrificed from the healthcare system? And that sucks. Because I think that other than our liberty, freedom, and justice, health is the most important thing we take for granted every day. I also see a lot more volatility here. Imagine if a lot of people caught the flu, etc… Trying to implement socialism in the most conservative system in the history of the world results in more sickness. Every time.

Profile photo of Jack Felter
Jack Felter @sitandthink

Can’t the IRS only collect on tax returns?

Profile photo of Joel Marchese
Joel Marchese @joelforcongressdistrict53

Jack, you raise many valid points. While my articles tend to be full length, my comments will be short. Obama and gang are true Chicago style bullies, using the Alinsky methodology to forward their warped agenda. This healthcare scam however will likely be their grand undoing. Sometimes, I guess, you can overplan something with such detail, that the damn thing just collapses under it’s own weight and complexity. This thing is a “Hindenberg” scale disaster! Thank Susan Davis for this one, next year at the polls!

Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@joelforcongressdistrict53

Joel:

Good post. If I understand my history correctly I would say “yes” King George III could indeed tax the colonists for tea they didn’t purchase. King George III was able to do this because the colonists were “subjects” of the British Crown. In addition to that these “subjects” did not have anything, such as our present day constitution, to guarantee their freedoms and rights. These “subjects” did not enjoy the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

If the King said “pay the tax” the only option you had was to pay the tax. There was NO RECOURSE and that is why George III was referred to as the “King.” Our colonist ancestors grew tired of this and especially with the idea of “taxation without representation.” In fact, our colonists grew very tired of this and petitioned the King on multiple occasions to please stop this. One tax program would stop and immediately another would start.

Many people today are unable to do the math on this well known story but eventually our colonist got so fed up that they declared their independence and fought a bloody war for independence. After winning that war the United States of America was born (not immediately, it took time).

You bringing this up is very timely because there are some similarities to our situation today. The King could tax the colonists because he basically owned them. The colonists had no rights of which to speak.

There is virtually only one difference between the colonists of yesterday and American citizens of today. We recognize our rights as coming from our creator and as being unalienable. If this is how we see our rights today, and it certainly is how we saw our rights on July 4, 1776, one could argue that we always saw our rights as coming from our creator and being unalienable (meaning that no man can take them from us, except by force).

King George took these rights away from us because we had nobody (and nothing) to act on our behalf to guarantee those rights. To be clear, we never expected man to “give” us those rights because they come from our creator. However, we did acknowledge that man could act as guarantor (or protector) of those rights.

This is the very first thing we did when we declared for all to hear, our independence from the crown. The first thing we did was to get the states (formerly colonies) together to form a plan to guarantee our rights and freedom. Over the next few years we devised a constitution to 1) guarantee that freedom and 2) form a government whose ONLY and SOLE purpose was to swear an oath to the first goal of guaranteeing and protecting our freedom.

I have said many times on this site that if we shred the constitution then we shred all oaths of those who defend our freedom and as we all know the top person responsible for protecting our freedom is the President of the United States. Shred the constitution and you relieve him of his responsibility to defend our freedom, and you also obliterate the government (whose sole reason for existence is to defend our freedom). Alas, most politicians don’t seem to care. Some do!

Yes, King George could tax the colonists to death if he wanted to because the colonists had no formally recognized freedom/rights. He could tax you if you purchased something (tea) and tax the next guy the same amount if he didn’t purchase something (tea).

Can King Obama tax us today for not purchasing health insurance? No. First of all “taxing” is the same as “taking” except that “taxing” is legal and “taking” is not. If taxing is legal and you can be subject to a tax when you have not done anything wrong, then the tax is not a penalty for your bad (or wrongful) behavior. A “fine” would be for wrongful behavior.

King Obama cannot “tax” you BECAUSE you didn’t purchase health insurance, as we already know Obamacare was struck down by SCOTUS for just that. But King Obama (and Congress) can “tax” you anytime they want and for any amount. They do not need a reason. Read the 16th amendment and you will see that they do not need a reason. We are splitting hairs here because we all know the linkage between the two, but if this ever goes back to court, this will be a valid defense.

The Obamacare law was struck down when it was a “fine” but when it was changed to a “tax” it was rendered irrelevant and set aside. Many people will tell you that SCOTUS upheld Obamacare. Oh yeah, show me the passage in the United States Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to interfere in health insurance. It isn’t there. I think I am preaching to the choir though – at least I hope I am.

One more thing. Can the IRS still apply the first year “tax” to persons who do not sign up for health insurance? Since the Congress has the constitutional power, in Article I, Section 8, with the limitations of Section 9, which were removed by the 16th amendment to “tax” you without limit and without reason, yes, the IRS can legally collect this first year “tax.”

Meanwhile the Obamacare law is over there on the sideline, flapping in the wind and having absolutely NOTHING to do with us paying this tax or that tax. It has NO IMPACT at all, except as a guideline for Obama to continue to wreak havoc on the health insurance system. People will pay the tax no matter what, and if the program survives five years (which I doubt it will, perhaps five weeks) and the government needs more money and we fight them on raising our taxes, they will find a NEW requirement that health insurance plans “need” to have and everyone’s plan will be canceled and the rates will go up again.

Great post. Great way to get people to start thinking!

Vote for Joel – pass it on!

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

That’s a lot of assumptions you made there, @kevlar. I’d like to see a source on at least 2 of them. Iraq and Afghanistan were two poorly conceived strokes of revenge over 9/11. 9/11 was a tragedy, don’t get me wrong there, but Iraq and Afghanistan were MASSIVE overreactions. They cost us between 4 and 6 Trillion dollars (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-28/world/38097452_1_iraq-price-tag-first-gulf-war-veterans) , devastated a whole region,killed thousands of our sons and daughters (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-28/world/38097452_1_iraq-price-tag-first-gulf-war-veterans) , killed thousands of civilians (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/world/asia/afghanistan-civilian-casualties/index.html), may be partially responsible for our high gas prices, and is one of the causes of more terrorist attacks of late. Also, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN DID NOT ATTACK THE UNITED STATES! Al-Qaeda did. So what good would invading the middle east do against Al-Qaeda? No good. Even Dick Cheney admits that there was only a THREAT (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/29/2853061/cheney-iraq-wmd/) of WMDs being given to Al-Qaeda, because extensive searching found no WMD’s of any sort in Iraq (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/iraq-wmd-poll-clueless-vast-majority-republicans_n_1616012.html)

About the IRS, even the article you cited says that the investigation is ongoing, and hasn’t concluded yet. So that one has been forced to the back burner for now.

In almost your entire article, you present your own opinions (which are inherently biased, like all opinions) as facts that counter mine, which are cited to both a non-partisan fact checking cite, and reputable news organizations. I find that interesting, and very arrogant.

Car insurance is, in fact required in many states. This link (http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=ins&subject=ins_req&story=state-insurance-requirements&referer=advice) lists all the states that require some kind of car insurance. You blatantly lied there.

Apart from the many blatant errors in your entire post, it was interesting. I didn’t know one could just spew that many falsities in one post.

Having only the entire idea of your post (that my entire response was incorrect) ain’t bad, is it?

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

@joelforcongressdistrict53, you accuse the President of manipulating children to advance his agenda… What possible reason could that serve? He will be ineligible for the presidency once his term is up. Why would his education goals be politically motivated? To get the kids in Illinois to vote for him for senator? That makes no sense at all.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@keeperisme

Jack:

If you have read any of my posts elsewhere on this site you will know that I am a fan of people providing supporting evidence when able. Therefore I take no offense when you ask me to do the same.

Unfortunately there is not supporting evidence in written form for everything. For example, when the United States is attacked, where is the supporting evidence that we as a nation should stand up in our own defense? Sorry, I can’t provide you with a specific link to that because one does not exist. It is a matter of patriotism and love for the freedoms that we as Americans enjoy. It is a matter of personal choice that free people want to remain free and there is no link to prove that.

The other end of that scale is the ridiculous. For example, I don’t think this applies to you but it does make a good example. We were attacked on 9/11 and lost nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. This is well known by everyone. My posts are generally very long and if I provide supporting evidence for this baseline stuff my posts would be so long that nobody would read them.

That said, there is plenty of stuff in between that warrants supporting evidence from someone who asks.

You may be of the opinion that Afghanistan and Iraq were “two poorly conceived strokes of revenge over 9/11” but that is only a matter of opinion, albeit your opinion. You were probably thrilled to find that I might actually agree with you. You might remember that I said “You can legitimately debate HOW those wars were fought but what is NOT open for debate is the legitimacy, or cause, of either of them.”

If you want to discuss the notion that those two wars could have been fought better, you will get no argument from me because I agree. If you want to debate the legitimacy of our participation in those wars I would refer you to what I have already written. I will dig up some supporting evidence for a couple things though.

I will take exception to the notion that Iraq was “revenge over 9/11.” I know that it is a well established liberal talking point but the sad fact (for liberals) is that Iraq probably had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. I say “probably” because that answer will never be known.

The Bush administration assumed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so our participation in the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. This is a liberal talking point that I thought was put to bed years ago. Although the evidence is probably available, I am not going through that much research just to find proof of something someone never said. You can research it if you want. It is a failed liberal talking point.

You said “but Iraq and Afghanistan were MASSIVE overreactions.” This is your opinion as well. You provide no supporting evidence that our freedom is worth a certain dollar amount or a certain number of enemy killed and not a single dollar or enemy more. Please don’t be offended because I know you won’t find any evidence to support that. I neither argue nor accept your number of enemy killed nor dollars spent. Our freedom is worth every penny.

What is our freedom worth? Depends on who you ask. Many a soldier throughout our history have given their lives to defend our freedom and I would imagine that they would tell you that you can’t put a price on it. If someone is going to try to take my freedom, as happened on 9/11, then I probably don’t care how many of them die while I defend my freedom. Same goes for Iraq. There was a very serious threat to wipe out the freedom of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans. What is a reasonable value to put on defending that freedom? Some would say “live free or die.” You make the call.

You said “may be partially responsible for our high gas prices.” At least you got something right. Terrorism is one of the major causes of high gas prices. The other major cause of high gas prices is the fact that our government insists on going out of their way to keep those prices there (subject for another thread).

You said “and is one of the causes of more terrorist attacks of late.” I disagree. The terrorists hit us first and we then defended ourselves. The reason the terrorists are gaining strength and attacking us again is that our current commander-in-chief decided to NOT defend the United States and instead treat the terrorists as equals by giving them rights and privileges that are for Americans only. This is war and should be treated as war. But the liberals want to treat it as a criminal action and run it through the court system. Courts serve a purpose but they don’t protect you on the international scene from those who are hell-bent on killing you. I shouldn’t need to provide links for this because it is painfully obvious.

You said “Also, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN DID NOT ATTACK THE UNITED STATES! Al-Qaeda did.” You are right on one and wrong on the other. Afghanistan did not attack us. Al Qaeda did. Please refresh my memory about where they trained, equipped, and planned that attack on us? Oh yes, now I remember. They trained, equipped, and planned in Afghanistan under the PROTECTION of the Taliban, who at the time was the governing authority in Afghanistan.

You might remember that we (the United States) first attempted to negotiate with the Taliban after 9/11. True, we were not willing to give much in the negotiation but we did tell the Taliban that we wanted them to close ALL al-Qaeda training camps, cut off all funding and assistance to al-Qaeda, and turn over any and all al-Qaeda in their possession.

These may seem to you to be harsh demands but considering that we had just witnessed the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans on our streets at the hands of al-Qaeda, these were very reasonable demands. Guess what? The Taliban told the United States to go to hell. Instead we met them on the battlefield and brought hell with us.

If you need a link to support that you obviously didn’t pay attention during that time. If you were not yet born then, you could have asked anyone. Either way, as a responsible debater you should first do your own research. I am not against providing evidence (and I will) but I tend to go out of my way, not for the obvious, but for the contentious points that perhaps you legitimately missed (because I know that happens).

Your next comment “So what good would invading the middle east do against Al-Qaeda? No good.” Makes no sense now that we know that it was al-Qaeda who attacked us and they did it from the Middle East (you should have been able to figure this one out on your own).

You said “Even Dick Cheney admits that there was only a THREAT of WMDs being given to Al-Qaeda…” Yes he did say that, many times. Everyone in any political position said that many times. Everyone with half a brain understood this. Let me point out the obvious to you because obviously you have not thought this through.

If you take the Obama viewpoint and consider the defense of the American people and the associated freedoms we enjoy, to only be a matter for law enforcement and the courts and specifically NOT the military, then you would do just what you have proposed. You are proposing that we, the United States of America, the most free and powerful nation on earth, not act in our defense UNTIL we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction.

Well, in a WMD attack, especially in cities the size of those in the United States, a single attack could render millions of Americans dead. Don’t you think that waiting in the WMD game is a bit too risky? The president of the United States is solely charged with defending the freedoms of this nation and to help him with that monumental task he is given command of the most powerful military in the world AND he is also given the powers of the rest of the government because defending our freedom was and still is the ONLY reason why we even have a government. By the way, George W. Bush was unwilling to take that chance with your life and you can thank him for that any time you wish.

You said “because extensive searching found no WMD’s of any sort in Iraq.” You are wrong here but this is where I feel compelled to provide supporting evidence because indeed, you could have missed it. First my commentary on the issue. This is only one reason why we went to war in Iraq, but by itself it is an overwhelming reason. I listed some others above.

We did in fact find WMDs in Iraq, enough to do serious damage. What we did not find was the large quantity that we expected to find. Another caveat – it is undeniable that Saddam Hussein made them, possessed them, and used them to kill tens of thousands of people (some estimates are over 100,000 people killed by Saddam Hussein and WMDs), this is just a side note but it adds credibility to the program and the fact that he was not averse to using them. You can do your own research here but it is readily available.

WMD in Iraq: http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918

Here is an interesting article from the liberal New York Post (a liberal source so you should enjoy it) about some of the Wikileaks documents revealing WMDs we found in Iraq. I was unaware of this until doing research for this post, thanks Jack.
http://nypost.com/2010/10/25/us-did-find-iraq-wmd/

If you want more you can do the research.

Other acts of war against the United States of America by Saddam Hussein:

You might remember that after Desert Storm the United Nations set up “No-fly” zones in northern and southern Iraq. These were not set up by the United States but they were patrolled every day for several years by coalition aircraft, which included U.S. military aircraft. Saddam Hussein would often fire on those aircraft in an attempt to entice our pilots into attacking his country (for the negative publicity it would cause). We didn’t.

Each and every time Saddam Hussein fired on our military aircraft it was an act of war and each and every time Saddam Hussein committed an act of war against the United States it formalized and legalized any and all military actions we would decide to take against him. We eventually said “enough is enough.” We didn’t even need those other legitimate reasons to answer the call to war in Iraq. Saddam gave us plenty of them. This kinda makes that liberal talking point about WMDs a moot point, don’t you think?

An excerpt from the book “known and Unknown” by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

“Iraq’s repeated efforts to shoot down our aircraft weighed heavily on my mind. Iraq was the only nation in the world that was attacking the U.S. military on a daily basis – in fact, more than two thousand times from January 2000 to September 2002.” (page 418)

Since I am almost certain that a card-carrying liberal would never believe anything Don Rumsfeld wrote in his book, I thought I would share with you his sworn testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on 18 September 2002:

“His regime has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq, ordering the extermination of over 50,000 people. His regime on an almost daily basis continues to fire missiles and artillery at U.S. and coalition aircraft as they fulfill the U.N. mission with respect to Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch.”

You made a comment that “In many states, it is required to have car insurance.” I took you at your word and decided to see for myself. I could not find a single state that requires a person to have car insurance.

My reply to that was as follows: “Car insurance: There is not a single state in this union that requires you as a person to purchase car insurance. As far as health insurance there once was a law that required you as a person to purchase health insurance but the United States Supreme Court struck that down.” For that you called me a “liar.” I looked at your next link that identifies car insurance by state and that didn’t convince me that as a person I must, by law, have car insurance.

As proof of that I offer this. I asked my neighbor if his seven year old son had car insurance. I was told that he didn’t. Now, am I doing a strict interpretation here? Yes I am and there is a reason for that.

You ONLY have to have car insurance if you plan to drive a car, meaning simply that if you choose to not drive a car then there is no requirement to purchase car insurance (seems obvious, perhaps even you understand this). That means that you are required to purchase a product (car insurance) if and ONLY if you CHOOSE to participate in driving. Car insurance is NOT forced on you because you are alive, it is forced on you because you choose to participate in driving. Driving is a voluntary action. The reason I went with the strict interpretation is that this will help to compare and contrast this with Obamacare.

Obamacare, on the other hand was written to force you to purchase a product against your will (involuntarily) or to impose upon you a penalty for NOT participating in something, in this case, commerce. Once again, you are ONLY forced to purchase car insurance if you want to participate in driving. You can exercise your freedom and not be required to purchase car insurance.

However, Obamacare, as written requires you to purchase a product even if you choose to NOT participate. Unfortunately, participation in life is not voluntary because the very act of breathing is an involuntary act. The only thing you can do is voluntarily opt out (most people refer to that as suicide).

I hope I have been able to get down to a level that you might be able to understand without calling me a “liar” when clearly I did not lie. You can be compelled to purchase insurance (car) if and only if you choose to participate in driving (where you can interfere with and ultimately deny the rights of others by crashing into and killing someone). However, you cannot be compelled to purchase a product (health insurance) just because you opt to live when killing yourself is the only way to not-live. That would be stupid!

I agree that in general, having a health insurance policy is a responsible thing to do and I am not advocating otherwise. I currently have a health insurance plan that costs me nearly $3,000 per month. I am not against health insurance. I am, however, for the free exercise of our rights.

If for whatever reason, at your particular stage in life, you decide that your pursuit of happiness dictates that you do not have health insurance then that is your right. By the same token and I know this is going to sound mean, if you decide to not have health insurance and because of this you forego that operation you need, that is also your right to do.

You can do whatever you want to do so long as you don’t deny my rights in the process. If you want to die from some curable disease then you have that right. You do not have the right to force me to pay for that operation though. I make a little bit of room for emergency care and a lot of room for charity. But if you take money from my pocket to pay for your health insurance then you have violated my rights by stealing private property.

While I do absolutely believe in charity for those who are less capable to pay their way, every time the government comes in and increases my taxes or does something to make my expenses increase (like regulating businesses unnecessarily) I have less money I can donate to charity.

Also I am not against helping the truly poor. But there are so many people taking advantage of welfare that again, because of the high taxes it demands, I don’t have extra money for the poor.

Big government – few freedoms. Bigger government – even fewer freedoms.

What other facts would you like to ignore?

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@keeperisme

Jack:

If you have read any of my posts elsewhere on this site you will know that I am a fan of people providing supporting evidence when able. Therefore I take no offense when you ask me to do the same.

Unfortunately there is not supporting evidence in written form for everything. For example, when the United States is attacked, where is the supporting evidence that we as a nation should stand up in our own defense? Sorry, I can’t provide you with a specific link to that because one does not exist. It is a matter of patriotism and love for the freedoms that we as Americans enjoy. It is a matter of personal choice that free people want to remain free and there is no link to prove that.

The other end of that scale is the ridiculous. For example, I don’t think this applies to you but it does make a good example. We were attacked on 9/11 and lost nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. This is well known by everyone. My posts are generally very long and if I provide supporting evidence for this baseline stuff my posts would be so long that nobody would read them.

That said, there is plenty of stuff in between that warrants supporting evidence from someone who asks.

You may be of the opinion that Afghanistan and Iraq were “two poorly conceived strokes of revenge over 9/11” but that is only a matter of opinion, albeit your opinion. You were probably thrilled to find that I might actually agree with you. You might remember that I said “You can legitimately debate HOW those wars were fought but what is NOT open for debate is the legitimacy, or cause, of either of them.”

If you want to discuss the notion that those two wars could have been fought better, you will get no argument from me because I agree. If you want to debate the legitimacy of our participation in those wars I would refer you to what I have already written. I will dig up some supporting evidence for a couple things though.

I will take exception to the notion that Iraq was “revenge over 9/11.” I know that it is a well established liberal talking point but the sad fact (for liberals) is that Iraq probably had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. I say “probably” because that answer will never be known.

The Bush administration assumed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so our participation in the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. This is a liberal talking point that I thought was put to bed years ago. Although the evidence is probably available, I am not going through that much research just to find proof of something someone never said. You can research it if you want. It is a failed liberal talking point.

You said “but Iraq and Afghanistan were MASSIVE overreactions.” This is your opinion as well. You provide no supporting evidence that our freedom is worth a certain dollar amount or a certain number of enemy killed and not a single dollar or enemy more. Please don’t be offended because I know you won’t find any evidence to support that. I neither argue nor accept your number of enemy killed nor dollars spent. Our freedom is worth every penny.

What is our freedom worth? Depends on who you ask. Many a soldier throughout our history have given their lives to defend our freedom and I would imagine that they would tell you that you can’t put a price on it. If someone is going to try to take my freedom, as happened on 9/11, then I probably don’t care how many of them die while I defend my freedom. Same goes for Iraq. There was a very serious threat to wipe out the freedom of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans. What is a reasonable value to put on defending that freedom? Some would say “live free or die.” You make the call.

You said “may be partially responsible for our high gas prices.” At least you got something right. Terrorism is one of the major causes of high gas prices. The other major cause of high gas prices is the fact that our government insists on going out of their way to keep those prices there (subject for another thread).

You said “and is one of the causes of more terrorist attacks of late.” I disagree. The terrorists hit us first and we then defended ourselves. The reason the terrorists are gaining strength and attacking us again is that our current commander-in-chief decided to NOT defend the United States and instead treat the terrorists as equals by giving them rights and privileges that are for Americans only. This is war and should be treated as war. But the liberals want to treat it as a criminal action and run it through the court system. Courts serve a purpose but they don’t protect you on the international scene from those who are hell-bent on killing you. I shouldn’t need to provide links for this because it is painfully obvious.

You said “Also, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN DID NOT ATTACK THE UNITED STATES! Al-Qaeda did.” You are right on one and wrong on the other. Afghanistan did not attack us. Al Qaeda did. Please refresh my memory about where they trained, equipped, and planned that attack on us? Oh yes, now I remember. They trained, equipped, and planned in Afghanistan under the PROTECTION of the Taliban, who at the time was the governing authority in Afghanistan.

You might remember that we (the United States) first attempted to negotiate with the Taliban after 9/11. True, we were not willing to give much in the negotiation but we did tell the Taliban that we wanted them to close ALL al-Qaeda training camps, cut off all funding and assistance to al-Qaeda, and turn over any and all al-Qaeda in their possession.

These may seem to you to be harsh demands but considering that we had just witnessed the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans on our streets at the hands of al-Qaeda, these were very reasonable demands. Guess what? The Taliban told the United States to go to hell. Instead we met them on the battlefield and brought hell with us.

If you need a link to support that you obviously didn’t pay attention during that time. If you were not yet born then, you could have asked anyone. Either way, as a responsible debater you should first do your own research. I am not against providing evidence (and I will) but I tend to go out of my way, not for the obvious, but for the contentious points that perhaps you legitimately missed (because I know that happens).

Your next comment “So what good would invading the middle east do against Al-Qaeda? No good.” Makes no sense now that we know that it was al-Qaeda who attacked us and they did it from the Middle East (you should have been able to figure this one out on your own).

You said “Even Dick Cheney admits that there was only a THREAT of WMDs being given to Al-Qaeda…” Yes he did say that, many times. Everyone in any political position said that many times. Everyone with half a brain understood this. Let me point out the obvious to you because obviously you have not thought this through.

If you take the Obama viewpoint and consider the defense of the American people and the associated freedoms we enjoy, to only be a matter for law enforcement and the courts and specifically NOT the military, then you would do just what you have proposed. You are proposing that we, the United States of America, the most free and powerful nation on earth, not act in our defense UNTIL we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction.

Well, in a WMD attack, especially in cities the size of those in the United States, a single attack could render millions of Americans dead. Don’t you think that waiting in the WMD game is a bit too risky? The president of the United States is solely charged with defending the freedoms of this nation and to help him with that monumental task he is given command of the most powerful military in the world AND he is also given the powers of the rest of the government because defending our freedom was and still is the ONLY reason why we even have a government. By the way, George W. Bush was unwilling to take that chance with your life and you can thank him for that any time you wish.

You said “because extensive searching found no WMD’s of any sort in Iraq.” You are wrong here but this is where I feel compelled to provide supporting evidence because indeed, you could have missed it. First my commentary on the issue. This is only one reason why we went to war in Iraq, but by itself it is an overwhelming reason. I listed some others above.

We did in fact find WMDs in Iraq, enough to do serious damage. What we did not find was the large quantity that we expected to find. Another caveat – it is undeniable that Saddam Hussein made them, possessed them, and used them to kill tens of thousands of people (some estimates are over 100,000 people killed by Saddam Hussein and WMDs), this is just a side note but it adds credibility to the program and the fact that he was not averse to using them. You can do your own research here but it is readily available.

WMD in Iraq: http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918

Here is an interesting article from the liberal New York Post (a liberal source so you should enjoy it) about some of the Wikileaks documents revealing WMDs we found in Iraq. I was unaware of this until doing research for this post, thanks Jack.
http://nypost.com/2010/10/25/us-did-find-iraq-wmd/

If you want more you can do the research.

Other acts of war against the United States of America by Saddam Hussein:

You might remember that after Desert Storm the United Nations set up “No-fly” zones in northern and southern Iraq. These were not set up by the United States but they were patrolled every day for several years by coalition aircraft, which included U.S. military aircraft. Saddam Hussein would often fire on those aircraft in an attempt to entice our pilots into attacking his country (for the negative publicity it would cause). We didn’t.

Each and every time Saddam Hussein fired on our military aircraft it was an act of war and each and every time Saddam Hussein committed an act of war against the United States it formalized and legalized any and all military actions we would decide to take against him. We eventually said “enough is enough.” We didn’t even need those other legitimate reasons to answer the call to war in Iraq. Saddam gave us plenty of them. This kinda makes that liberal talking point about WMDs a moot point, don’t you think?

An excerpt from the book “known and Unknown” by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

“Iraq’s repeated efforts to shoot down our aircraft weighed heavily on my mind. Iraq was the only nation in the world that was attacking the U.S. military on a daily basis – in fact, more than two thousand times from January 2000 to September 2002.” (page 418)

Since I am almost certain that a card-carrying liberal would never believe anything Don Rumsfeld wrote in his book, I thought I would share with you his sworn testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on 18 September 2002:

“His regime has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq, ordering the extermination of over 50,000 people. His regime on an almost daily basis continues to fire missiles and artillery at U.S. and coalition aircraft as they fulfill the U.N. mission with respect to Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch.”

You made a comment that “In many states, it is required to have car insurance.” I took you at your word and decided to see for myself. I could not find a single state that requires a person to have car insurance.

My reply to that was as follows: “Car insurance: There is not a single state in this union that requires you as a person to purchase car insurance. As far as health insurance there once was a law that required you as a person to purchase health insurance but the United States Supreme Court struck that down.” For that you called me a “liar.” I looked at your next link that identifies car insurance by state and that didn’t convince me that as a person I must, by law, have car insurance.

As proof of that I offer this. I asked my neighbor if his seven year old son had car insurance. I was told that he didn’t. Now, am I doing a strict interpretation here? Yes I am and there is a reason for that.

You ONLY have to have car insurance if you plan to drive a car, meaning simply that if you choose to not drive a car then there is no requirement to purchase car insurance (seems obvious, perhaps even you understand this). That means that you are required to purchase a product (car insurance) if and ONLY if you CHOOSE to participate in driving. Car insurance is NOT forced on you because you are alive, it is forced on you because you choose to participate in driving. Driving is a voluntary action. The reason I went with the strict interpretation is that this will help to compare and contrast this with Obamacare.

Obamacare, on the other hand was written to force you to purchase a product against your will (involuntarily) or to impose upon you a penalty for NOT participating in something, in this case, commerce. Once again, you are ONLY forced to purchase car insurance if you want to participate in driving. You can exercise your freedom and not be required to purchase car insurance.

However, Obamacare, as written requires you to purchase a product even if you choose to NOT participate. Unfortunately, participation in life is not voluntary because the very act of breathing is an involuntary act. The only thing you can do is voluntarily opt out (most people refer to that as suicide).

I hope I have been able to get down to a level that you might be able to understand without calling me a “liar” when clearly I did not lie. You can be compelled to purchase insurance (car) if and only if you choose to participate in driving (where you can interfere with and ultimately deny the rights of others by crashing into and killing someone). However, you cannot be compelled to purchase a product (health insurance) just because you opt to live when killing yourself is the only way to not-live. That would be stupid!

I agree that in general, having a health insurance policy is a responsible thing to do and I am not advocating otherwise. I currently have a health insurance plan that costs me nearly $3,000 per month. I am not against health insurance. I am, however, for the free exercise of our rights.

If for whatever reason, at your particular stage in life, you decide that your pursuit of happiness dictates that you do not have health insurance then that is your right. By the same token and I know this is going to sound mean, if you decide to not have health insurance and because of this you forego that operation you need, that is also your right to do.

You can do whatever you want to do so long as you don’t deny my rights in the process. If you want to die from some curable disease then you have that right. You do not have the right to force me to pay for that operation though. I make a little bit of room for emergency care and a lot of room for charity. But if you take money from my pocket to pay for your health insurance then you have violated my rights by stealing private property.

While I do absolutely believe in charity for those who are less capable to pay their way, every time the government comes in and increases my taxes or does something to make my expenses increase (like regulating businesses unnecessarily) I have less money I can donate to charity.

Also I am not against helping the truly poor. But there are so many people taking advantage of welfare that again, because of the high taxes it demands, I don’t have extra money for the poor.

Big government – few freedoms. Bigger government – even fewer freedoms.

What other facts would you like to ignore?

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

I want to make something clear. I do not support al-qaeda, or any terrorist organization. Thus I don’t find the US’s demands unreasonable.

About the ACA: You say you want lower taxes so you can donate more to charity. Why not just pay your taxes and give it to what is essentially government charities? We had a problem in this nation with healthcare. Your taxes already went to people’s healthcare: It was just more expensive. So by 2017 (which is when the ACA is expected to save the government money, http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/23/2821251/obamacare-save-federal-government-190-billion/) you will have more money to give to charities, and charities will be able to do more by covering fewer hospital tabs.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@keeperisme

Jack:

I guess I don’t know where you learned logic from, perhaps a “top-shelf technical university” but it has some serious flaws. In reference to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. you said that you don’t find the U.S. demands to be unreasonable, yet you insist that we “over-reacted”

You said “Iraq and Afghanistan were two poorly conceived strokes of revenge…” Not that it maters but these were not wars of “revenge.” These were wars to make sure that in the case of Afghanistan that we would never be attacked again by terrorists who found safe-harbor in Afghanistan, and in the case of Iraq we wanted to make sure that Saddam Hussein, who was actively supporting and exporting terrorism stopped.

Furthermore we wanted to be sure that any WMDs he might have or build never be used against Americans anywhere in the world and the only way to do that was to make sure he had none. These are the reasons these two campaigns were “conceived.” They were “conceived” to defend our country.

You seem to have a substantial problem with the way they were conceived yet you have no problem with our demands. What do you want us to do? You are ok with the United States demanding that the Taliban stop harboring terrorists so that we might avoid another 9/11 but you are not ok with us defending the United States when the Taliban tells us to go to hell. Sorry, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I would ask the same question on Iraq but it seems so obvious that your position would probably be “its ok for us to demand that Saddam Hussein allow the United Nations weapons inspectors in to either verify the existence of or the non-existence of WMDs that might be used against Americans.”

However, when Saddam Hussein tells the United States and the United Nations to go to hell, we just have to shut up and take our medicine. Well I disagree because that “medicine” you would have us take with WMDs would mean thousands if not millions of Americans killed. Too risky!

You can’t cheer on the United States for making demands that would protect the American people but then condemn the actions taken if those demands are rejected.

On a side issue though, I did mention that if you want to discuss the conduct of those wars, not how they were conceived but how they were executed, you will probably find that we have much to agree on.

About taxes and charity. If you give money, or time, to a charity of your choice, that is freedom. Whereas if you give your money to the government so they can give it to a “charity” that is not freedom, that is control (the absence of freedom).

Finally I love your COMPLETE misunderstanding of this nation we call America. Consider your quote “So by 2017 (which is when the ACA is expected to save the government money.” You are so incredibly naïve that it is just funny, and very sad. There is NO SUCH thing as saving the government money because that infers that the government even owns money. It doesn’t. Any and all money in a government coffer belongs to the people. This could ultimately be the source of your entire inability o properly understand politics in the first place.

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

I may have incorrectly stated my position, or you may have misinterpreted it. I am not against the defense of America. I am against the massive waste (in both human and monetary costs) that all wars create. At least in Iraq, in the end, I do not believe that was in self defense. It ultimately wasn’t, because there weren’t any WMD’s in the hands of al-qaeda in Iraq (Saddam Hussein’s regime is another entity).

I think it is high time for a reorganization of our armed forces if we are to continue in our “sheriff of the world” role (not that I support us staying in that role, but if we do, we should reduce the waste). That reorganization should include a much bigger role of special forces, and unmanned systems. Currently, US special forces receive a tiny share of the nation’s defense spending. That needs to change if we are going to counter the asymmetrical/Guerrilla forces that terrorists favor. Traditional armies just endanger more people unnecessarily. An emphasis on drones need to increase as well. Again, if drones can do reconnaissance missions and light strike missions, why not give them a bigger role, and save the combat pilots for what the drones can’t do? The same logic applies for ground unmanned systems. The job of a tank crew could easily be done by a computer.

If the US military introduces these reforms, the costs (human and monetary) of going on a rampage across a region will be far less.

About the government not owning money, and thus is unable to save it: You take my statements far too literally, my friend. The government can spend money, so it can spend less money. That is what is implied when one says (in the context of a law that will reduce government expenses) X will save the government money. It’s like the word colder in physics. Technically, there’s no such concept. Yet everyone still knows what you mean when you say something is colder, don’t they? So you’re just being a stickler, which is always a sign of the fact that someone is running out of material.

About my “inability to properly understand politics”, you are incorrect and you know it. We may not agree about many things, but since when does disagreeing with someone over an abstract, non-concrete subject such as politics (where disagreeing is a pillar of the activity), makes a person the idiot you assume me to be?

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@keeperisme

Jack:

If you are willing to give a little then I will too. Perhaps I did misinterpret your position on defense. However, you didn’t give me much to go on. All I was hearing was the idea that the wars were expensive and over-reacting by a war-happy president and basically just a stupid thing to do (I want to be clear that these are my words, at least the last phrase, not yours). You came across as being hateful and having a biased opinion on war with an inability to, in my opinion, connect war with national security.

I would agree, if your real position is that war, when not in the interest of national security, is wrong. A valid subject to debate is what constitutes a threat to national security.

One thing however is very clear and that is that WMDs in the hands of those who want to kill us is absolutely a threat. But a civil war that is fully contained within the boundaries of the sovereign nation of Libya in 2011 is not a threat to our national security. Just like the civil war in Syria, which we almost stepped in and got all over our shoes, is not a threat to our national security. Armed with that information, why was it wrong, in your eyes, to go to war in Iraq but not wrong to go to war in Libya (keep in mind that the killing of our ambassador in Benghazi would not happen for another year, so that is not an excuse).

Let’s look at your statement: “At least in Iraq, in the end, I do not believe that was in self defense. It ultimately wasn’t, because there weren’t any WMD’s in the hands of al-qaeda in Iraq (Saddam Hussein’s regime is another entity).

I have mentioned to you our illegitimate entry into the internal civil war in the sovereign nation of Libya in 2011 in which we killed people when clearly there was no national security threat to justify our actions. Even president Obama knew there was no threat to our national security. How do I know that he knew that? Because if there was a threat he would have been justified in taking our nation to war, but since there was no threat he had to call it a “humanitarian” mission.

I understand humanitarian missions and time permitting and if our forces are properly rested, I often support them. A perfect example was the United States military humanitarian mission in assisting Japan after the devastating earthquake and follow-on tsunami of 2011.

The difference between that humanitarian mission and the humanitarian mission in Libya, same year, is that in Japan we did not use offensive combat tactics designed to kill people; whereas in the humanitarian mission in Libya we did. Question: how many people can you legally kill using offensive combat operations (dropping bombs) on a humanitarian mission? Answer: NONE because each and every person you killed would be MURDER, and the blood of those you murdered would forever be on your hands.

You have not even tried to say that was a bad decision so I will assume that you condoned that action. All the while you think that there was no threat from Iraq and that our actions were wrong. Well, the entire Bush administration thought there was a threat there (I don’t expect you to be shaking in your boots because I know you disagree with the Bush administration, just thought I would point that out).

The entire congress would disagree with you. Seventy percent of the House of Representatives and 73% of the United States Senate voted in favor of offensive combat action in Iraq. For what it’s worth, most of the world supported military action in Iraq. And to put icing on the cake, the United Nations acknowledged the threat from Saddam Hussein. You don’t stand alone though; all the liberals wore blinders on that one.

Fact – WMDs in the hands of those who want to kill us is a very serious threat to national security. Your opinion at the time probably was that Saddam Hussein didn’t have them but almost the entire world thought differently. Fact – we did find WMDs in Iraq. Perhaps you didn’t read the supporting evidence you asked me to include.

Your little play on words didn’t last even ten seconds with me. Specifically your statement “because there weren’t any WMD’s in the hands of al-qaeda in Iraq.” You missed the part where I said (Cheney said too and you actually quoted him saying it) that the threat was not specifically the Iraqis bringing the WMDs to America but the possibility of WMDs being given to al Qaeda terrorists (or others) who wanted to kill us. The idea that we didn’t find any physically in the hands of al-Qaeda does not negate the threat one bit. Please tell me you got your education from some place other than a “top-shelf university.” Those seem to be places that lately tend to produce people who cannot think for themselves.

One thing about your “sheriff of the world” comment. I agree, I would rather not be the sheriff of the world. However, without a “sheriff” in the world there would be chaos. That still doesn’t by itself make it our responsibility though. However, stability (not chaos) in the world is in our national security interest and that doesn’t just make it our business, if nobody is willing to step up to the plate, it makes it our DUTY to step in.

Our freedom cannot very well stand a chaotic world. This means that if nobody else will provide stability then in our own national security interest, we must provide it. Our constitution guarantees our freedom. Our president swears an oath to defend the constitution and therefore he assumes that guarantee of our freedom. If the only way he can make good on that guarantee is to provide stability in the world then that is exactly what he must do. I agree with anyone who says that other countries need to step up and help.

While I don’t disagree with you on emphasizing a smaller and more mobile force, such as the Special Forces you suggest, I think it is funny how just a few short years ago the liberals got a very capable man fired for suggesting the very same thing.

In case you miss my meaning, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld suggested a smaller and more mobile force with special operations capabilities would be better suited for this new type to terrorist warfare. He was frowned upon by liberals for this and the liberals eventually blamed all the shortcomings of the Iraq war on his “ill-conceived” idea.

The liberals put so much political pressure on George Bush to fire Rumsfeld and eventually that is exactly what happened. Perhaps Rumsfeld was a man before his time. It is always good to see a liberal do an about-face. Turns out it was too late to do the country any good but better late than never.

There are some benefits to using drones but there are plenty of drawbacks. One drawback that is often overlooked is that if you take out the target with a drone, the collection of intel from that attack is nil, and good intel can often shorten wars and save lives.

I don’t think I was very clear on the government saving money and for that I apologize. I took it as though you meant that it was saving the governments money. The government has no money to save and that is what I meant. Yes, I am all for the government spending less money. Sorry for the confusion on that. However, the context of your original point on the subject does not match the context of your second point on the subject – translation: you spoke twice on this and I spoke once on it and between the two of us we have addressed three completely unrelated points on the same subject (better we leave this one alone, LOL).

Last but not least it is my belief that this country was made strong by opposing viewpoints but there are two things to be said about that. One is that neither side can do any good for this country until all sides agree to conduct their business of opposing ideologies INSIDE the confines of the constitution. Currently neither major party is good at that.

Two, there are differing ideas, differing ideologies, differing methods, different understanding of some of the more complex facts, and a disagreement on some of the most basic facts. I cut you an awful lot of slack for not knowing that our U.S. military aircraft were fired upon by Saddam Hussein hundreds and possibly thousands of times. I lived through that and though it was reported often in the news it wasn’t often at the top of the list.

However, not knowing that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of those who are hell-bent on killing us, is a threat, is spectacular indeed. If a person cannot see that when it is spelled out for him, then he just might be that idiot he believes others think he is, even if nobody actually called him that.

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

About the US’s role as sheriff of the world: Our country really don’t have to be the sheriff of the world. There are many international organizations with the intent of policing the world such as: The United Nations and Interpol. If you want exclusively the west to police the world, then there’s NATO. My point is that America doesn’t have to (and shouldn’t have to) police the world all by ourselves. I personally don’t think the US should be policing the world. We have far too many issues at home to deal with first (Civil rights for our own people, the economy, pollution, etc). I’m not saying that the US has to (or even should) step down as a world superpower, but it should let the UN and NATO lead the way. If the US were to become corrupt, the rest of the world wouldn’t want a corrupt police force. So it’s best for the whole world for the US to step down as the world’s cop.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@keeperisme

Jack:

Glad to see you are finally starting to do some of your own research here. This actually lets me get away with shorter posts, and I like that. Interestingly you said “There are many international organizations with the intent of policing the world such as…”

Really glad you included the word “intent” because that is the very reason the United States is left doing this stuff because the other organizations you mention only “intend” to police the world. There is a difference between an “intent” and actually doing what you say you will do.

The United Nations is probably the best example of “intent” with no follow-up. As for organizations like Interpol, they might be good organizations but they only “police” matters. Using “policing” actions as your national security is stupid. You should know that because each day we watch Obama fall farther and farther into that abyss.

I am not trying to downplay police forces, they have a role. However, the problem with using police forces as defense (we are talking about the national security of the United States) is that almost every time they must wait for the breach to happen before they can act. This might be a good way to patrol the speed on an interstate highway but it is no way to ensure a national security program.

You need a force (not always military, sometimes political pressure) to shape things before they go wrong. Because “wrong” in the international scene where WMDs are traded like baseball cards used to be, can result in millions of dead Americans.

When people talk about the United States “policing” the world they aren’t talking about arresting someone for breaking a law and then making sure they are secure in their rights while awaiting trial. Policing the world includes things like insuring the free flow of oil on the international market, for example.

As long as Obama is doing his best to stop America from developing our own oil, to include the export of significant amounts of oil to make the free-flow of oil impervious to international terrorist threat, we will need to be there to protect that market (this has NOTHING to do with profits, but has everything to do with survival).

I agree that we shouldn’t have to do this all by ourselves. It must, however, be done and if nobody wants to help then we are alone our there. That might kinda suck but if we stop, our economy will stop and our national security cost will go so high that we might not be able to afford to defend ourselves.

We stop policing the world and North Korea builds better missiles so their nukes can make it to any spot in the U.S. Iran develops nuclear weapons to bring to Detroit and St. Louis. We all of a sudden get to deal with nuclear holocaust here at home only because we didn’t want to be the only country policing the world, so we stopped. Sorry, the folks in Detroit and St. Louis are fellow Americans and they are worth fighting for. I could be wrong, instead of Detroit getting nuked it could be your hometown.

Anyway, thanks for defeating your own argument!

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

@kevlar

NATO actually does a pretty good job of policing the world in the manner you describe. It has been a major factor in the many of the operations the US has been involved in since the Berlin Airlift. Between all of its member states, NATO has the most powerful military force in the world at its disposal. The political, economic and military pressure is there for utilization in the fight against terrorism (or anything else that threatens pe. Its significant role in anti-terrorism operations will only increase in the near future, as the threat of terrorism migrates south into Africa, where both the UK and France have territorial interests. When the threat of terrorism reaches the doorstep of our European allies, they will be far more willing to get involved in the policing of the world.

Also, I find it very sad that you assume I wouldn’t care if multiple American cities are obliterated by nuclear weapons that North Korea and Iran must be within days of having (despite the fact their armies are still at 1960’s Soviet capabilities at absolute best, minus the million man army), just because I believe that the middle eastern invasion was unnecessary and that the pentagon could do its job just fine with less than $716B.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@keeperisme

Jack:

I started reading your post and my initial reaction was that I might owe you an apology because I might not have been clear on what “policing the world means” although that is a huge topic. I then read the rest of your post and decided an apology was not warranted.

That said; while foregoing the apology I will try to explain it better. Policing the world is not what the Obama administration thinks it is. Obama believes, and I think you do as well, that all we need to do to make the world safe is to wait until someone commits a crime or atrocity (because what constitutes a crime in one country may be common practice in another) and then apprehend them and send them to court for trial.

As I mentioned, this is a valid method to control (patrol) the speed on an interstate highway because if someone has exceeded the speed limit, the damage to the country is often reversible. I will spell that out for you – if someone is caught speeding the damage to the country is extremely minimal and probably non-existent (assuming they didn’t hit and kill a busload of children); meaning that stopping the “criminal” AFTER he has committed the act is usually fine.

However, this modus-operandi does NOT work if you are trying to implement a national security program because the damage the act caused (that caused you to act in the first place) might be too much for our nation to recover from.

Case-in-point: North Korea launches a missile with a nuclear warhead and that missile takes out Denver, killing some 3 million people. If we are lucky enough to catch the person who authorized that launch and bring him to trial, and he is convicted and receives the maximum sentence, is that enough to give justice to the rest of our country, to the folks who lost loved ones (who lost ALL of their freedoms) and property, or perhaps to survivors who will live the rest of their lives in pain, if there even are any?

The mere fact that there is a trial indicates that he may NOT be found guilty, perhaps by a stupid technicality involving an improper reporting procedure on the part of some local police department investigator. Or perhaps because he wasn’t allowed the use of certain classified documents to prepare for his defense because the release of those documents would endanger our country even more.

How many guilty people have been set free due to some bull-crap technicality? Have you ever seen a mistrial over something as petty as the sequestered jury reading the newspaper? When the criminal justice system handles things sometimes the guilty person walks. That might be ok in the case of the guy speeding on the interstate but it is NOT ok in the case of national security.

No, make no mistake about it, after the fact (especially in this situation) there is no way to bring justice in a court of law. Consider that we had the Boston Marathon Bombers on video doing their dirty deed and there are still people that want to let them go free.

How then do you exact justice from the above event? Just to remind you that event is the death of 3 million people. Since you can’t ever exact justice (even if you kill the person who authorized the strike) you make sure it never happens in the first place. This is where a “police” force will fail EVERY time. When we use the term “policing the world” we mean much more than just being “police.”

Policing means exacting justice for something that has ALREADY happened – the police force and courts punishing the guy today for his speeding that already happened, in this case YESTERDAY. Don’t misunderstand, police forces are necessary and they have their job to do and it is important, but it is NOT national security.

Even organizations such as Interpol, which you mentioned earlier, are necessary. If force is used (i.e. the military), and the person responsible is captured, not killed, Interpol is then useful to identify a background which helps us find out what else this guy might have done in the past.

It is inappropriate for the Denver Police Department to be in charge of making sure that North Korea never launches a nuke at us. It is also wrong for our national security forces (which includes the State Department, military to include Coast Guard even when attached to DOT, CIA, FBI, many parts of DHS, and others) to patrol Interstate 25, which runs through Denver, to catch and apprehend speeders.

Please don’t confuse the issue with the notion that local police are DHS because that is, for the purpose of this debate, just a ruse. You know what I mean here. This is kinda like taking a knife to a gunfight, or even worse, like taking a criminal justice textbook on to the battlefield and using it to defend against high-explosive weapons.

“Policing” the world involves considerably more than fighting power, although that is part of it. Policing the world involves things like foreign aid to countries, especially allies, to keep them on our side. Many small countries that are unable to defend themselves will ally with whoever gives them the most foreign aid (yes, sometimes you do have to buy your friends).

Consider this, why do we give foreign aid to Israel? Is it because we conduct massive amounts of trade with them? No, we do trade but our economy would be OK if that trade stopped. Is it because we get lots of oil from them? Hardly. Why then do we give aid to Israel?

Mostly because they are instrumental in the national security of the United States in that region. Israel has a vested interest in seeing that Iran does NOT build a nuclear weapon, so do we. That is paramount to us and yet it is even more paramount to the Israelis. You could say that in the Middle East, a very dangerous part of the world, Israel is OUR first line of defense.

Having gone through all that, do you think that a “police-only” force would even consider that? No they wouldn’t. They couldn’t consider that until the Iranians launched a nuke that damaged the interests of the United States, possibly destroying the country of Israel, and sadly by then it would be too late to prevent that damage.

I wish we didn’t have to “police the world” by ourselves either. I wish we had more international help but we don’t. Policing the world MUST be done – no exception; that is if we value our freedom.

I hope that provides the clarity I should have included earlier.

Now back to your post. You said “NATO [including all member states] has the most powerful military force.” That might be true and I won’t dispute it but so what – read the above explanation again.

In reference to NATO forces you said “…for utilization in the fight against terrorism.” Once again, see the above explanation.

Then you said something that was incredibly odd (for lack of a more direct description). You said “When the threat of terrorism reaches the doorstep of our European allies, they will be far more willing to get involved in the policing of the world.”

Sorry but I have important news for you so please listen up. Terrorism reached the doorstep of our European allies LONG BEFORE it hit our doorstep. Kinda blows your theory that then “they will be far more willing to get involved.” Pay attention to history.

Europe has had terrorism on their doorstep for centuries; our doorstep was first hit in 1993 when the WTC was bombed. Yes there were other international incidents which involved us such as the 1972 terrorist attack on the Olympics in Munich, the 1983 terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, the 1986 Berlin Discotheque bombing, the 1979 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and some others, but they were not within the boundaries of the United States proper (exception that embassy ground is our soil).

There were a couple incidents inside the United States before that but we greatly ignored them, much to our peril. In fact we largely ignored the 1993 WTC bombing. President Clinton treated it as a criminal act and refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the terrorist implications. We didn’t really even acknowledge international terrorism until 11 September 2001. The Europeans had terrorism on their doorsteps for years by then.

You went on to say “Also, I find it very sad that you assume I wouldn’t care if multiple American cities are obliterated by nuclear weapons.” I never said that you wouldn’t care, just that this could easily happen if your plan was implemented (you are free to infer what that means though). Your plan of course being allowing the terrorists to attack (therefore the crime committed) then catching (policing)the “criminals” and affording them “rights” and “due process” in our criminal justice system.

Jack, you should know that you are not alone in this belief. Obama has the same outlook on national security and this country is being damaged every day as a result. I would offer examples but if you pay attention to geopolitics you are painfully aware of many of them. You have established that you don’t observe the geopolitics of the world around you in sufficient detail to understand this though.

In reference to North Korea and Iran you made the statement that they are “still at 1960′s Soviet capabilities at absolute best.” Please pay attention to geopolitics to see how wrong this statement is and why that line of thinking is VERY DANGEROUS.

In order to defend a nation it is not always necessary to understand “why” the enemy hates you (although sometimes it can help), but it is paramount to know the capabilities of your enemies as best you can. For the record Jack, I am very glad that you are not in charge of defending my freedom – I have enough to worry about.

You said “…just because I believe that the middle eastern invasion was unnecessary…” Again, you are entitled to your opinion and you correctly stated that this is your opinion. However, in my opinion, your opinion is irrational. Rational debate can take place between rational people who happen to disagree but rational debate assumes all sides to be “rational.” I discussed at great length in previous posts how this “invasion” to use your word, was done to protect and defend our freedom, but you are still entitled to your opinion.

I guess that I place great value on my freedom and in my opinion you place very little value on your freedom. For the record, and I have mentioned this before, I really don’t care about your freedom until you consider that your freedom and my freedom are tied together and if your freedom is taken by an enemy then mine will also be taken by that same enemy.

If you have ever wondered why patriots who you don’t even know you are willing to die defending YOUR freedom that is why, because they are also defending their freedom (we are all free Americans).

I also addressed the actual conduct of those wars and separated the reason from the conduct. We had every valid reason to defend ourselves in both instances. As a matter of a different topic, that being HOW we conducted those wars, we can absolutely discuss that all day and again, you might be surprised to find that on the conduct of the wars we probably agree on quite a bit.

Last but certainly not least is this statement you made. “…and that the pentagon could do its job just fine with less than $716B.” Perhaps they could but consider this: it is not the job of the pentagon to avoid wars with only one exception and that exception is that a strong and capable military is often a good deterrent.

The job of the military is to kill people and break things and to do it with certainty. The military/pentagon comes in to play ONLY when the politicians fail. If we are attacked (using 9/11/2001 as an example) the politicians, using ALL the political might of the United States government, are responsible to resolve the differences between our nation and the nation that attacked us (terrorists in this case so you negotiate with those nations who provide the terrorists with safe-harbor, such as Afghanistan and the Taliban). If the politicians succeed in negotiating a verifiable plan to ensure that we will NEVER be attacked again, you don’t even call the pentagon and there is no war.

If the politicians fail to resolve the issue (sometimes when the politicians fail it is not their fault, as was the case when the Taliban told the United States to go to hell), then and ONLY then do you call the pentagon. If you get to the point that you are forced to call the pentagon to ensure that this country is NEVER attacked by that group (al Qaeda in this case who was being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan), just how ready and capable do you want the pentagon to be?

You said the pentagon could do just fine with less than $716 billion. You might be right and you might be wrong and the difference is defending this nation and therefore your freedom versus not defending this nation in which case you lose your freedoms. My point is, and I have made this point before, that if freedom costs $900 gazillion (that’s a lot of money, suffice it to say that is one dollar short of infinity) then you pay $900 gazillion to maintain your freedom.

Keeping that concept in mind that you pay whatever it takes to be free, I tend to agree with you that the pentagon could operate on fewer dollars than it currently uses. But the pentagon is not responsible for and should NEVER have their mission changed to “saving money.” Avoiding wasteful spending is legitimate though and should be taken into consideration.

As long as we have a president who presents himself and the United States as weak in the eyes of the world, we will continue to spend gobs of money on the pentagon to bail us out of that failed leadership.

Until we get a president/commander-in-chief who commands respect on the world stage (we have had presidents like this in the past) we won’t ever be able to rationally address the amount of money that goes to the pentagon.

The way I see it this won’t change for at least three years and if Hillary (or some other weak leader) is elected, we won’t be able to start solving this for an ADDITIONAL four years. If we then are dumb enough to re-elect her, as we were dumb enough to re-elect Obama, you can add an ADDITIONAL fours to that for a total of eleven more years. By then it will probably be too late to EVER fix the problem.

Don’t forget to vote.

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

@kevlar

Once again, you take my statements far too literally. The fight against terrorism includes the prevention stuff you speak of.

From 1949(its founding) until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO was merely America’s equivalent of the Warsaw Pact. It was far too concerned with fighting a cold war to be able to police the rest of the world. So until the post-soviet era in NATO’s history, those terrorist acts (exempting the one against a US embassy) were the responsibilities of the countries they afflicted.

Since 9/11 (a prime cause of the middle eastern operations under Bush) was after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO should have taken an even larger role in Iraq and Afghanistan (those were NATO missions in name only, not to disrespect the soldiers from the rest of the coalition). They didn’t for some reason, which is unfortunate. Again, NATO’s role in policing the world with all the coercion and military might you speak of will only increase as the threat of terrorism reaches Europe’s colonial interests in Africa in the post-soviet era, as NATO now has the resources free to focus on policing the world.

I think we should make another thread about this topic, as we have hijacked a thread about Obamacare and brought international politics into this.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@keeperisme

Jack:

I’ll go you one better and suggest that we just drop this topic because you are unable to understand what “policing the world means.” It seems you think that “policing” means war and that no matter what goes on in the world, if war erupts NATO can handle it.

Several errors in your thinking and the most important one we have beaten to death, but since you still don’t get it we should stop.

War is the last option but policing the world DOES NOT mean waiting for war to act (I am convinced you believe it is). Policing the world can include war but it doesn’t have to. Policing the world includes all the things that make the world not only spin, but spin the direction we want it to spin. Whoever plays the role of sheriff gets to call the direction the world spins. NATO does not, will not, and cannot have the identical interest we have because NATO isn’t us.

Policing the world does not mean being a police force, but I have said that enough, you still don’t get it. Policing the world is far more; it means spending time, effort, and money molding the world in such a way that our freedom can remain free. And yes, if war breaks out and that war is waged against us then it is us who gets to fight the war.

Can you think of any other country that has our best interest at heart? Didn’t think so.

Leading a coalition is fine but following the leadership of another country in an effort to do what we want done is probably never going to happen. We are the only remaining superpower (but that’s going fast now that Obama is at the controls) and as such it is in our best interest to lead. Lead we must, but we can hope that others will help because most (not all) of our goals are compatible with our allies. Perfect example of not all of our goals being the same, have you ever noticed that every time we need to put a coalition together, the individual member countries are not the same?

You wrote an especially interesting paragraph. You said “Since 9/11 (a prime cause of the middle eastern operations under Bush) was after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO should have taken an even larger role in Iraq and Afghanistan (those were NATO missions in name only, not to disrespect the soldiers from the rest of the coalition). They didn’t for some reason, which is unfortunate.”

How many times do I need to spell it out for you? You are getting better but you still don’t understand it. You have come from a long way from your initial foolish statement “The media isn’t very kind to those who start pointless wars, and Texans, let alone a pointless-war starting Texan” to “Since 9/11 (a prime cause of the middle eastern operations under Bush)…” But unfortunately you are not even half way up-to-speed in being an informed voter. It takes no special schooling or formal schooling in geopolitics, all you have to do is pay attention to what is going on around you. I guess you were busy all those years. Honestly I don’t know how old you are but you don’t even know current events very well.

Let me cut to the chase on that last paragraph. You are starting to figure it out and if I have helped you to understand then I feel good about it because now instead of just badmouthing Bush like you used to do at least you give him the recognition that 9/11 might have had something to do with his actions in Afghanistan, and terrorism might have had something to do with his actions in Iraq. News flash!!! These are the ONLY reasons for his actions in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. I am not a teacher and I don’t like teaching history, but if I have to teach it I expect my students to want to learn and apply themselves. You are unable to do either with enough speed to ever catch up.

You say that NATO should have taken a larger role, then you correctly acknowledge that they didn’t but for some reason you don’t know why. It doesn’t matter why. They didn’t but the job still had to be done. If the job must be done, and nobody else will step forward, guess who gets to do it?

Jack, with all due respect, I love to engage in rational debate on the merits with others who can engage rational debate. You either have difficulty learning or you choose to not be rational, I don’t know which – maybe both. Once in a while you make a good point though, just not often enough. We both agree with your last point that this should be a different thread. My suggestion to you is to go seek out that new thread and while you are waiting for me (because I have no intention of following you over there) start paying attention to news, current events, and geopolitics. The more you pay attention the faster you will learn. Suggestion, stay away from MSNBC, the NY Times, and all of the other liberal sources.

Having suggested that you stay away from MSNBC I do have one exception and that is that you can learn a lot about economics and how the economy is influenced by politics by watching Larry Kudlow on CNBC. I have other favorites to watch, listen to, and read their writings. I mention him only because he is in a venue (NBC) that I otherwise suggest you keep away from.

Let’s turn this thread back over to the discussion of Obamacare and part company agreeing on this one point.

Good day, sir!

Profile photo of Jack
Jack @jack

Oh no, @kevlar, I understand your whole coercion and POTENTIAL military action idea. I have started another thread about The role of america as the world’s sheriff, and how NATO could (and should) take over that role. I understand that the US has to police the world if no one else does. I’m merely saying that someone else should step up and do it, and I believe that group should be NATO until Russia loses its permanent seat on the UN security council. The fact that you say the US should remain the policeman of the world because “Whoever plays the role of sheriff gets to call the direction the world spins”. Actually, the role of the policeman is not to determine the flow of world events.It is to ensure order and public safety. I’m glad you aren’t in control of the policing of the world. You would lead the most corrupt police force in the history of the world, which you would probably try to rewrite with your own “spin” on. I will not write anything else about this on this thread. I suggest you reply on the thread below, since we have hijacked a thread about the ACA, if you choose to reply. The thread about the role of america as the world’s sheriff is at (http://www.volkalize.com/topic/should-the-us-be-the-policeman-of-the-world/).

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS